Reason: High level of vandelism from Wikipedia contributors after an INO employee made adjustments to reflect the current organization of the company and Canadian industries it is present in. All the changes were reverted to the outdated content of the page. Reasons were stated as the content was promotional, however, this was not the case. For visitors of the INO page, the current content does not provide a true profile of the company.
INO Canada (
talk)
19:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I'm reconsidering that a higher level of protection than PC may be warranted given the fact it's an FAC article, among other reasons.
Chetsford (
talk) 00:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC) Pending-changes protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The cadence of vandalism is so slow-moving and the stakes here are really so low, that indefinite EC may be an overreaction.Chetsford (
talk)
00:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting restoring semi-protection for this page because the same vandals putting in fake information about a fake fourth season have returned to resume vandalizing the page.
Mr Fink (
talk)
19:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent
disruptive editing from an IP user; adding episodes and supposed end date that aren't available in the provided sources. There has also been a minor issue cropping up lately, where users are adding an air date to one of the episodes, when it aired a month prior. Unless temporary protection is added, various users will continue these issues.
BrickMaster02 (
talk)
01:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Request two or three weeks full protection due to slow-motion edit-warring between established users.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
20:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The subject died, so all those old versions hotly debated previously (which triggered the protection) are now obsolete. Besides, there's a new and well-sourced, neutral version, at:
Paul Laviolette.
XiounuX (
talk)
02:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent insertion of false data with sources that do not verify the claims from IPs of a block evader
User:Dismant39 going back many months to a year, at least. Protection log shows track record of protections applied. Last one significant one was for 3 months. Can we step it up to a longer duration?. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
06:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High levels of edits that looks to be edit warring between two users. Likely to get worse given game is subject of online controversy. Suggest Extended Confirmed Protection for now.
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
22:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Lots of IP vandalism adding yet more unconfirmed material because of the shutdown of CNN Philippines, which has required several reverts. This field (Philippines TV) is known for its heavy load of vandals and editors adding fictitious information. The replacement for CNN Philippines, RPTV, as yet has no in-house news programs.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
08:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Apparently the same person using different IP proxies is spreading negative information about a Russian opposition politician in violation of
WP:BLP policy, doing so in a disruptive way, waging edit wars against multiple editors and misrepresenting sources.
Tobby72 (
talk)
12:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism - spurts of IP disruption going back years, and vandalism has been coming thick and fast for the last few days.
Entranced98 (
talk)
16:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism, and many users tried to revert those edits multiple times since there is no such announcement from
RPTV since the in-house news still not develop, or those select
CNN Philippines' newscast will carried over, or renamed on the new channel.
BeemoKincaid (
talk)
09:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – He has reportedly been hired for a new position with a new team, however, the new team has not made an official announcement that he's been hired. IPs are prematurely editing the page prior to the team's official announcement. Rockchalk71719:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High leve of IP vandalisms. As soon as a previous protection expires, they re-start. I suggest permanent protection for the page allowing only registered users to edit.
Riktetta (
talk)
10:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It seems the regular editors on the page are handling it well enough. There are disruptive edits only ever few days since protection expired.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The webpage is now very outdated and there has been an increase in following his professional career given the recent win at the Asian Games. Kindly request that the protection is reduced to remedy the misinformation.
Kp031298 (
talk)
19:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. The nationality of this company is persistently changed to Chinese, more or less exclusively by IP editors or new users.
TylerBurden (
talk)
22:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: New Accounts which Show IP addresses aka accounts that don't know the rules, are adding and changing the infobox without proper due diligence, gave them a reason in the backlog, nonetheless, they keep ignoring it. Therefore I ask for Ethiopia page to have protection. Its a page with thousands of traffic, and it seems Bad Faith and Propaganda CtasACT
CtasACT (
talk)
00:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Ongoing unsourced birthdate edits, first from a named account that has since been blocked (with possible socks) and now from an IP. Please protect to auto-confirmed status.
Shearonink (
talk)
19:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism, and multiple times to manually revert those vandalism, since the channel is yet on soft launch, others are trying to add some programs that are not yet promoted on the channel.
BeemoKincaid (
talk)
00:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: After semi-protection, confirmed users continue to add poorly-sourced rumors as fact to these two articles. A few EC users have also done the same, but I'm trying to leave notices. Requesting temporary ECP for a week or two.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
11:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll ping @
WikiLeon: who protected this for input...not an admin anymore, but still active. My 2c: I wouldn't unprotect this...it is, after all, of legal importance.
Lectonar (
talk)
15:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The page is not alone. There are several more found
here. I tend to agree with previous comments: the pages should not be unprotected, but a discussion (RFC?) about their relevance on Wikipedia might be called for.
Favonian (
talk)
21:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree. I don't have an issue with them being here, and would prefer they stay protected. They are linked from a number of user pages, and there are probably few watchers to catch potential vandalism. It does have legal ramifications.
Dennis Brown2¢02:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page was indefinitely semi-protected in 2013. It was redirected by consensus at AFD last August. I highly doubt that protection is still needed. The protecting admin no longer has the mop.
QuicoleJR (
talk)
16:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I note that it was protected by
Jimbo Wales. Never saw one of those before. And I do not see why any unconfirmed account or anonymous IP address would need to edit it. The history is available for merging into the target, and that's all that needs to be done. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
19:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree per
Anachronist. Redirects are less watched, so easier to get vandalism go unnoticed. And for some reason, children's shows and cartoons seem to be ripe for vandalism, redirect or article, so I would lean towards keeping it simply because protection is a net positive. Put another way, out of the next possible 100 edits to that page (if unprotected), it is likely that all 100 would be vandalism, not valid changes.
Dennis Brown2¢08:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Since October 2022, IPs and socks (likely of Connor19986) persistently remove sourced content, likely by the subject of the article or someone acting on their behalf. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
18:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Other editors are engaging in edit war and are denying a fact about a well known fighter. so the page needs to be protected.
Amtsrbh32 (
talk)
20:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – random IP editors upset (imo rightfully so) adding unsourced OR/SYNTH to the page after congresspersons recent statements to palestinian peace protesters.
LegalSmeagolian (
talk)
16:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Hotwiki: Why do you have "The" tacked on the front of your username in your signature? Please see
WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. Also, it might be a good idea to add an inline comment to that section of the article.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
22:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Temp semi protection. The pending changes is working but oh my god is it annoying to manage and I have seen 10+ pending edits stacked on each other.
Toketaatalk19:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
El C: I was looking at this one and took too long to decide on a course of action. It might be worth considering one year instead of indefinite. The article has only had two edits since June and only one of those was problematic.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
23:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I did put a CTOPS notice on the talk page, where discussion of this issue is about a month old.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Our friend, the prolific sock puppet Kelowantogdog has returned. This edit
[8] by the IP from Toronto, 199.119.233.168. Even the same edit summary "Rescued valid citations once again" shows that is someone who has edited the article before. Compare that edit by the IP with this edit by Kelowantogdog's sock puppet DJ drama23
[9]. And compare that edit with another of Kelowna's sock puppets, Jet Lii
[10],
[11], and
[12]. All these edits are clearly by the same person, and that person has been blocked. This is a my first time asking for page protection for this article, but it is not my first time asking for page protection from Kelownatopdog. It has been my experience that imposing page protection for a short time does not work with him because he just starts editing again the moment the page protection expires, and so for this reason, I would this article protected for a least a considerable period of time. Thank you for your time and help. --
A.S. Brown (
talk)
06:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: the same as above. Our friend, the prolific sock puppet Kelowantogdog has returned. This
[13] by the IP 199.119.233.168 that occurred on 2 February just 14 minutes apart from the edit on the Alkhalil family is clearly the work of the same person. Even the highly misleading edit summary "Citations removed for what reason?" is very typical of Kelowantopdog's editing style. And it is useful to compare that edit with this edit
[14] by Watchthislilsuzy, another of Kelowantopdog's sock puppets. Given that Kelowantopdog never takes the hint and just starts editing an article the moment the page protection expires, would it possible to have this article protected for a substantial period of time. Thank you for your time and help. --
A.S. Brown (
talk)
07:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recently a Netflix series was released about the drug trafficker, which is my guess why there's an increase of vandalism. A temp edit protection should probably do the trick.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK08:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Same reason as last PP, unabated disruption by IP socks (e.g.
[15]) on a page covered by
WP:CASTE sanctions. Asking for perma PP as the socking has been going on for years now and is unlikely to budge.
Gotitbro (
talk)
12:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – There has been multiple attempt to change photo in infobox with a unknown child in the photo. After multiple reverts, the edit keeps happening. I request page protection so the page is not continuously vandalized.
Aadirulez8 (
talk)
20:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: ECP arbitration enforcement Israel/Palestine, spillover of the Israel-Hamas war. Disruptive editing in the infobox, adding unsourced changes.
Ecrusized (
talk)
10:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. It still looks pretty tame. I have added an editnotice making the 1RR restriction clear (it had not been before). Let's see what effect that has.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined I would take it up with the user who accepted the edit you reverted first before requesting a protection upgrade. And I would also consider that there has been only one such edit since PCP was imposed.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting temporary semi-protection for two weeks (i.e. until after the event ends). Spike in vandalism and unsourced edits from new and anonymous editors due to festivities drawing near.
Yue🌙04:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Continuing block evasion by Kelownatopdog. This edit today
[16] by an IP from Toronto bears all the hallmarks of Kelowantopdog. Compare that edit with this edit
[17] by another IP from Toronto. Note how Kelowantopdog always puts the names of other editors in quotation marks. For furhter comparison, look at this edit
[18] by one of Kelownatopdog's sock puppets. Given that this article has been protected twice before because of Kelowantopdog (see here
[19] and here
[20]), surely it is time for more sterner measures? Our friend Kelownatopdog is no doubt laughing at all us as he continues his merry rampage of block evasion, sock puppetry, petty insults and ethnic-religious chauvinism across the encyclopedia, and so for this reason would it please be possible to have this article protected for a considerable period of time? Whenever the page protection expires, Kelownatopdog just starts editing again, which is which this problem continues. Thank you for your time and help. --
A.S. Brown (
talk)
06:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This is being phrased as if I'm using
sockpuppetry in order to get my way, which isn't the case at all. I am using a shared public IP, which can be displayed on my talk page, hence my address changes periodically.
92.40.212.157 (
talk)
10:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection was originally applied to
GameMaker: Studio until a page with the title became a redirect to
GameMaker.
Anthony Appleyard, the one who protected the article back in 19 July 2013 (
look here), did not specify why he protected the article. He is also deceased, so I cannot discuss this with him.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Thunberg's page is again expediting vandalism. Mainly changes to her name. I suggest/request placing another 30-day "Extended Confirmed Protection" on her page. Thank you . . .
That'sNotMyName2020(talk)18:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also left CTOPS notice on talk page. If we go to longer protections in the future, we really need to think about whether we want to just drop PCP entirely.
Daniel Case (
talk)
22:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Logged as enforcement for
WP:GS/PW. @
Daniel Case: It looks like we conflicted again. I logged this as enforcement for
WP:GS/PW as it seems very likely that disruption will continue due to the topic area and the article history. I'm going to take a break from this page for an hour or two if you want to finish the remaining requests.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
23:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: repeated removal of polls from table Yet again, the three most recent polls are being removed from the table in this article:
[21] Despite the article having been protected twice by @
User:Daniel Case, the latest one not having expired yet, another lower-access level editor has removed three polls on spurious grounds; it essentially amounts to continued disruptive editing. The current protection level is "Autoconfirmed and confirmed users". The editors who have recently removed these polls appear to be either unregistered, new users, or autoconfirmed, who have not edited much else recently. The most recent removal of these polls is another example:
[22] I strongly suspect that pro-monarchy bias is behind these continued removals of the three recent polls. More to the point, it looks like the Republicanism in the United Kingdom article needs increased protection please.--
TrottieTrue (
talk)
00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
TrottieTrue: This is a content dispute and must be resolved via
WP:DR. It's not reasonable in this situation to adjust the protection to exclude some editors and I will post on talk suggesting an RfC. I have not examined the bulk of your above comment but it might contain some research into the possible identity of an editor. That would be
WP:OUTING and would require that you be blocked. In general, do not comment on other editors.
Johnuniq (
talk)
01:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for adding the protection. Regarding the editor, I have removed the content that you refer to, but I believe that they have "posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia", as per WP:OUTING. You say "In general, do not comment on other editors." In this case, there are grounds to suspect that the editor has the same identity as a previously blocked editor. Should that not be reported?
TrottieTrue (
talk)
01:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Indefinite Extended Semi-Protection: Again and Again vandalism by sockpuppets (looks like a sockfarm), the editor Dr. Kaynaat is one of the recent socks of user Jha09.
Imsaneikigai (
talk)
18:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. IP user(s) ignoring Wikipedia’s Film Guide outline on budgets and disregarding multiple notable sources, opting to say they are all simply wrong about the film’s budget.
TropicAces (
talk)
19:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)tropicAcesreply
@
A smart kitten: The bot move protected the article, expiring at midnight on 5 February 2024. I remember there was a discussion about preemptively semi-protecting main-page articles but I don't recall how it ended. Can you point to it?
Johnuniq (
talk)
01:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has been vandalized many times, and the most recent vandalization was done 19 Days ago. It is possible that more vandalism can appear in this article. As a result, this page should be semi-protected.
2601:646:8003:6B20:50:C020:FA1A:A438 (
talk)
00:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 90 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The history of protection on this page is not robust enough to escalate it to indefinite. That said, the nature of the vandalism and the fact this is a BLP does warrant special attention. If significant vandalism persists after 90 days of semi-protection ends, please file a new request.
Chetsford (
talk)
06:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Multiple IP vandalism resuming within a day of the previous year-long block expiring, this probably needs another year.
Belbury (
talk)
10:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: There is an Iraqi user constantly distorted the match's report between Iraq vs Jordan shortly after Iraq lost 2-3 to Jordan to justify that Iraq "won a knockout stage game" in 2015 (7-6 on penalties to Iran after a 3-3 draw), while brazenly rejected the fact that, according from FIFA's knockout laws, when the match headed to penalties, the result is officially counted as a draw, no matter who won on penalties. When we write on this matter, we must respect what FIFA set up for, not by newspaper and propaganda. It's necessary to impose two or three weeks protection to restrict users with intention to distort the reality.
HiddenFace101 (
talk)
10:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I disagree. If this is just a dispute, why did this user make vandal actions with no respect to those official reports? I only try to recover what it has been set up for.
HiddenFace101 (
talk)
10:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
HiddenFace101, you've already been told to
assume good faith on your talk page, but I will repeat it again here. I do not see any vandalism by the user you are having a disagreement with, and would recommend you read
WP:NOTVANDAL. Consider starting a new, more respectful thread at the talk page to discuss these changes.
Isabelle Belato🏳🌈10:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That's interesting. Is there a specific technical reasoning as to why, or is it just not an option? I feel as if that would've been a more viable alternative rather than just having the whole thing locked from good faith IPs.
92.40.212.155 (
talk)
15:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
You could go through all the different RfCs we had for implementing pending changes protection in the first place, but I think this quote describes it best: For users who aren't banned or otherwise restricted from editing talk pages, a user's talk page comments should never require approval by another user. This includes talk page edits that are vandalizing or otherwise abusive, which should be handled through other extant Wikipedia processes such as reverting the change or banning the user. And indeed: who shall be the judge as to what is acceptable as talk-page contribution? We have multiple ways of dealing with disruption. For all the discussions about the topic, see
here.
Lectonar (
talk)
15:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Previously a now-blocked editor - how *odd* - and now multiple IPs are repeatedly posting POV content about Liston/Marciano/Machen. Can this talk page be temporarily auto-confirmed protected so these socks/meats will probably/possibly get bored and move on?.
Shearonink (
talk)
15:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Drive by disruptions by IPs (mostly to the lead) and other general disruptions. Asking for a temp PP to dissuade disruptive editing (also suspecting IP socking here).
Gotitbro (
talk)
15:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I am not going to make this a CTOPS action for three reasons: first, the disruption broke out only today after a long period of apparently predominantly peaceful editing; second, the article has not had to be protected for over a decade and third, there was no CTOPS-related tagging on the article until I put a notice to that effect on the talk page just now.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Similar to List of Helluva Boss Characters, too many unsourced edits, would semi for a week now and a week after the album drops.
Toketaatalk17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – IPs and new users keep removing properly-sourced content. Subject is currently in the news as she has just become Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. –
Asarlaí(
talk)13:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article has been overwhelmed by vandalism over the past 3 or days. I'm only asking for one month of semi-protection please. However, given the absolute absurdity of the recent edits; full protection may be in order.
2600:1000:B10D:8F37:5CDF:2037:8729:CC79 (
talk)
21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. The activity was limited to two editors, one now blocked the other given a final warning on their talk.
Aoidh (
talk)
23:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason:Semi-protect. Persistent IP vandal using at least two IPs, obsessively deleting a reliable source
[27][28][29][30][31] cited for a specific fact (which says precisely that fact: "the Falkirk tartan dates to the third century"). Claims their being reverted is "vandalism". This needs to stop. Latest edit injected their own unsourced personal opinion about what a "true" tartan is, and added redundant material in the wrong section. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined No valid reason given to unprotect this BLP. He's been a polarizing figure in the past, and this is an election year (but not for him), and anonymous edits are still possible via requests on the talk page. As I don't see any such requests in over a year, the burden isn't high.
Dennis Brown2¢00:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done. You'll be able to create the article once your account has been around for four days and you've made ten edits. In the meantime, you could create a draft at
Draft:Portland Retro Gaming Expo.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 23:33, 5 February 2024 (UT
Reason: High level of IP vandalism.
Tymjax (
talk)
02:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Expand By Tymirieyakious Elais Quayvon Jackson Loved All Infinite Campus Was A Great Learning System.reply
OhnoitsjamieBusterD I had assumed it would fall under
WP:HUMOR/
WP:FUN - I've hosted numerous similar, harmless "meme" userboxes and content with hundreds of transclusions without having an issue raised in the past. In the near-decade I've been active I haven't been challenged for something like this that stays strictly in the userspace. I typically avoid creating trivial content, but I fail to see how
WP:WEBHOST would apply in this case. If there's a policy or guideline that I'm violating and wasn't aware of, please do let me know. ~
Liancetalk23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not convinced it serves a useful purpose here, and am not interested in setting a precedent of protecting userspace memes. I'll leave it open in case there is an admin who thinks that is worth protecting.OhNoitsJamieTalk23:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Quite frankly I don't see the difference between protecting this page and any other user page. I see plenty of sub-userpages with protection in
Special:ProtectedPages which could be considered to have the same level of "utility" (or, lack thereof) to the overarching project. This includes numerous pages under the "humor" umbrella. Does this mean that my page should be the subject of vandalism attempts because it's a "meme"? What makes it worth protecting less than any other userspace page? I apologize but I don't see the argument here. ~
Liancetalk23:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ohnoitsjamie Per policy, I'm inclined to protect (given semi-protetion of userpages is pretty much automatic) and then encourage an MFD if someone doesn't think it should be here. I think the response to this request should either be semi-protection or deletion, and outside calling a U5 (which this isn't) deletion doesn't happen here.
Courcelles (
talk)
14:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
For the record, the reason this can't be considered for a U5 is because that criteria only covers userspaces of users "where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages". That clearly doesn't cover @
Liance with 7,000 mainspace edits.
Courcelles (
talk)
14:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protectedindefinitely. In line with my comment above. I'm not sure how I would !vote in an MFD, but that's where the "should we have this page hosted" question belongs. As an RFPP matter, it qualifies for protection as there is disruption.
Courcelles (
talk)
14:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article belongs to one of the politicians, who has had a controversial past with significant involvement in the
Ayodhya dispute. Recent news events such as
Ram Mandir opening in Ayodhya and awarding of
Bharat Ratna has brought him into the spot light. There are quite of number of ip edits, edits by non-confirmed users and socks of the same user trying to make changes to the lead, repeat points already mentioned and making POV edits. Most recent edits have come from a single user or his socks, who despite explaining in detail in the talk page and warning multiple times is making the same edits. The user account pertains to the particular user
User:The Invincible 000000 and now same edits from different ip address post warning (last edit of the same from IP
User:2001:1c04:2a08:a00:d828:d230:6206:d438). As the article is a biography with links to controversial subjects concerned with religion in India, request protection with edits restricted to extended confirmed users. Thanks.
Magentic Manifestations (
talk)
09:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Further sockpuppets of user Jaszen have turned up. They've been reported to SPI but in the meantime, requesting further page proection.
Barry Wom (
talk)
18:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Extensive IP vandalism and nationalistic editing against consensus and without using the
talk page. Additional notes inserted into text requesting discussion at talk page has been constantly deleted. Requesting semi-protection. Requesting the same for page
Wan Kuzain.
Jay eyem (
talk)
19:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This is a stopgap template, until such time as the 'graph' module issue is resolved. This version of Template:OSM Location map/core is the temporary re-working which produces 'better than nothing' maps using maplink instead of the vastly more flexible 'graph' options. It needs some maintenance, given the glacial rate of progress with the proper fix. In particular I need to sort out start numbers and increase the number of marks back to 60. This will be vastly easier if I can do proper editing. It was protected by
User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector because it is seemingly
too important to allow people to edit
but not important enough for WMF to sort out the underlying problem.
Declined. @
RobinLeicester: Instead, I have examined your contribution history in the template namespace and decided that you can be trusted with the "template editor" user right. Congratulations, you may now edit this and other similarly protected templates. Be sure to test changes to high-risk templates in their respective sandboxes. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
18:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because already it’s three year as per the log.There was no major sock activity.Mainly the normal user like me feel difficult as discuss page is somewhat inactive.For ex:
SayhadrikhandaCurrently I edited this page with high end resource with the collaboration of Administrator but the same research is applicable in this page too but unable to update the information.Incase if any sock active persists it takes 2 minutes to increase the level of protection.I request you to remove the protection(Atleast reduce the protection) so that all can contribute towards free encyclopaedia.
2409:40F2:1017:84C3:5C75:D209:11A1:6B02 (
talk)
19:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent IP vandalism - IP Accounts keep changing the page to mention a light up drone show which is currently called "Disney's Electrical Sky Parade". Despite this being a drone show that serves as a tribute to the Main Street Electrical Parade, I feel like this page is not the right place to mention it
Pepper Gaming (
talk)
19:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. They haven't made those edits in 10 days. Also, this sounds like a content dispute that could at least bear an attempt to resolve it on talk.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – anon IP repeatedly posting innuendo about topic of article, insisting it be added to article. I've tried reasoning with anon, to no avail. his edits should also be stricken from the page history. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.04:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
To be clear, I only suggest anon IP be blocked from editing the article and talk page discussed. Anon says they're going to take it to dispute resolution, I see no reason to block anon's ability to do so. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.04:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This seems to be a dispute on what content to include, and not disruption. And even if it was, extended confirmed protection is unnecessary and higher than the actual article's protection itself. Also, informing them that they'll be blocked shortly is hardly an attempt at "reasoning with the anon".
92.40.212.156 (
talk)
07:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello? Anyone? The page genuinely needs protection, and anon-ip's inclusions of guilt-by-association and conspiracy theories needs to be removed per
WP:BLPTALK, or am I missing some particular nuance? I acknowledge my previous comments were inadequate; the initial request is valid, his edits on talk are blp-talk violations. The other anon-IP who chimed in on this is not the IP that was in question; There's been no discussion with that identity on the blp talk page. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.02:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I apologize for my lack of clarity. It is extremely rare for me to make formal requests on wikipedia. I've been here a long time, and avoid the backend bureaucratic machinations as much as possible - to the point that I am ignorant about how many of them work. I was indeed asking for page protection on the Dan Quayle talk page, because the anon-IP is trafficking in serious BLP violative conspiracy theories. Editors other than myself have deleted his additions to the page because they violate talk-blp. I attempted to engage with anon-IP, to no avail. IP 92.40.212.156, ignoring my attempts prior to my notifying him that he would be blocked shortly isn't really good-faith. I notified him of same so that he'd be aware that the window of opportunity for responding was limited.
I thought I had selected the correct path - page protection due to talk-blp violations. I wasn't aware that I had selected disruptive editing. Or didn't I? I don't know, but I do know that I did not request that the IP or the IP range be blocked, I simply misspoke in my followup (again, forced-ignorance of these processes). My apologies for the confusion I generated. I still maintain that anon-ip's contributions to the talk page are clearly violative of talk-blp, as other editors have also shown by their reversions. Do I need to resubmit the request for page protection? cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is.21:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Years-long pattern of promotional and unconstructive edits, primarily by unregistered users, that are repeatedly reverted
Etoile ✩ (
talk)
22:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because has gone years after protected and there are a lot of old information, it can be updated page with new informations
Illyrianzz (
talk)
22:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Unprotection: It was fully protected back in 2008, because there's apparently "no reason to move or edit redirect without discussion". It has never been subjected to vandalism or any major content dispute, so this seems a bit overkill. And BTW,
Charles, Prince of Wales isn't protected at all. —Trilletrollet [
Talk |
Contribs ]
23:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done. The times this redirect has been edited has been the result of discussion. Therefore the protection is working as intended. No valid reason has been given to reduce protection of this redirect. It hasn't been subject to vandalism because it is protected. It's a short, often-used term for the target article, more so than
Charles, Prince of Wales, which is a less plausible search term than
Prince Charles. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. over the past month, the have been several incidents of disruptive/false editing.
Avishai11 (
talk)
20:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Likely collateral damage as one or several users who are making improvements would be affected by the requested protection. Disruption not that heavy.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hey Administrator, I am Shivam, a beginner editor at Wikipedia. I want to create a page related to the Myanmar Air Force's airbases. Could you help me to create? I will add only information and relevant content related to that are available in public domain.
Shivam Kumar 2406 (
talk)
07:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent
disruptive editing from various users; claiming that the series has been cancelled, according to one of the show's stars. However, actors do not speak for the fate of a show, and no official word has been made yet. Unless temporary protection is added, this kind of editing from others will continue.
BrickMaster02 (
talk)
22:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Despite a comment in the source (which itself was removed each time), in the past month alone edits like
this have been made on seven occasions and reverted by three editors (including me), including twice in the last couple of hours. A relevant discussion is at
Talk:Oscar Isaac#Nationality.
Largoplazo (
talk)
22:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of vandalism as well as poorly-sourced changes based on a hiring rumor, requesting semi-protection ECP (confirmed users are involved now) for perhaps a week given how long the hiring process for coaches seems to be taking this year. Thanks.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
04:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked. Please report to
wp:aiv if the problem continues, if it is the same user over and over again. A userblock is preferable to page protection when possible. 15:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Joyous!Noise!
Temporary extended confirmed protection: Persistent
vandalism – This page is disrupted by adding unsourced pov and content removal on regular intervals. It necessitates the ECP protection.
Admantine123 (
talk)
18:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Needs probably only a month or so of protection as certain right wingers are upset regarding this members vote regarding an impeachment of a Biden official.
LegalSmeagolian (
talk)
16:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I have not put this under CTOPS due to the length of time; although I will put a notice on the talk page. We'll see how it goes later on.
Daniel Case (
talk)
23:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Under alot of vandalism in the past few days due to recent controversies in the corporation, with alot of edits labeling the corporation as a
Black company without any credible sources.
Anime King (
talk)
04:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined The copyvio issues appear to have been resolved, and the article was just created today. I have created a talk page with a CTOPS notice. Let's see how things play out.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Looks like vandalism whereby I have described the person as a 'public intellectual' citing sources and an editor has been changing it to 'author'; that Wikipedia account appears created specifically to work on this Wiki page.
AltruisticHomoSapien (
talk)
05:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This page has been semiprotected for fifteen years. Could you downgrade it to pending changes and see how that goes? The protecting administrator hasn't edited in almost a month.
123.51.107.94 (
talk)
04:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:Arbitration enforcement – Recent change by a user that
WP:GAME'd the system to raise to autoconfirmed status to make large swathing change instead of following process and raising an edit request.
Request increased PP per
WP:GENSEX arbitration for contentious topic to avoid this happening again.
Raladic (
talk)
07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Photocredits are not correct of first photo. It is not JD Cairns who took the photo but it is me: Too van Velzen. And it is not for free use. It may only used by AUMC and VU Amsterdam. I will allow the presence of this photo on this site but the photocredits must be changed ASAP!!!
2A02:A467:905F:1:FD:75F8:1DFF:CC3 (
talk)
12:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I found a cropped version of this photograph on someone's LinkedIn profile:
[38] - the clouds and bicyclist are the same. An administrator has already tagged the photo on Commons with missing permission, and I notified that administrator of this comment here. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
08:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. "Vandalism" is defined as edits specifically to undermine the encyclopedia. The one time removal of information was likely bias. The other link was you correcting the insertion of a youtube video, but that was probably not vandalism, might have been added in good faith for all I know, but I didn't go digging into the history to see where it was added. Regardless, there isn't enough recent vandalism, or disruption, to warrant protecting the article.
Dennis Brown2¢09:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – I requested page protection two days ago and was told to watch it in case edit warring continued. Sadly it has. Appears to be two IP users who wont use the talk page.
N7o2h3 (
talk)
17:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Already protected in the past for the same reason, disruptive editing restarted as soon as protection expired.
Broc (
talk)
18:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – This needs semi-protection from IPs changing the subject's nationality; if they feel thusly inclined, they can take it up on the talk page. I'd do it myself but I'm about to block a regular account for that kind of edit warring, and I'd rather have someone else look at it. There's probably a dozen, maybe two dozen such IP edits in the recent history, and lengthy semi-protection would be a good thing.
Drmies (
talk)
18:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I like to inform you the information given in article that make to completely show down our lodhi caste. information in this article is not proper about lodhi caste , my whole community feel very disappointed, frustrated with this,
so please sir remove protection from this article and we add true data of lodhi caste with proper reliable resources..
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Last edit from that IP was two days ago, and that was the only one in the last couple of months. AN/I might be a better place to take this report if the idea is to blunt the IP's actions.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Minimal edits in the last couple of months. I have nonetheless put a CTOPS notice on the talk page, though.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Unprotected Admin who made the protection has been dead for almost 6 years; and it seems from your talk page conversation with the new user that they're editing constructively.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page protection is requested for the Wikipedia article on the Indian National Lok Dal due to biased edits without sources, which compromise neutrality and factual accuracy.
Ah507 (
talk)
19:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Although not as frequently, this article also suffers from the same problem as Pixar's: accounts writing incorrect, unsourced information or modifying already verified information.
Madyoshi01 (
talk)
00:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Several accounts (IP or registered) from the same sockpuppet/vandal user has been attacking my talk page with verbal insults and/or death threats.
PJ Santos (
talk)
11:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Change the information about TETChange.
This information is ABSOLUTELY FALSE!!!!!! "Notable businesses include Garantex,[201] Eggchange, Cashbank, Buy-Bitcoin, Tetchange, Bitzlato, and Suex, which was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2021. Bitzlato founder and owner Anatoly Legkodymov was arrested following money-laundering charges by the United States Department of Justice.[202]"
We are a licensed Public Ogranisation, which has no sanctions. We aren't associated with the U.S. at all. In fact, we have branches in Armenia/Yerevan, Russia/Moscow, Tbili&Batumi/Georgia.
We kindly ask you to remove the information about our company and stop misleading people and potential customers into doubting our trustworthiness and reliability, since we have always worked with pure honesty and 100% legally.
Thank you in advance, hope to see this part removed.
Declined Last edit in the "edit-war" was two days ago...the last edit summary seems to have nailed it: "The discussion refers to a similar a FA BLP, and all of which retain the neutral form. Having undergone a consensus driven process through FAC have found this to be acceptable".
Lectonar (
talk)
11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent disruptive editing from various IP addresses and new accounts - based upon the edit history, this has been going for around year.
Panian51300:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – New IPs and accounts blanking parts of the article, might need extended-confirmed protection instead due to
WP:RUSUKR seeing as the disruption is over ethnonationalist disputes.
Mellk (
talk)
00:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Disruptive editing during the month of February. Different IP editors adding unsourced content that Tomasson has left his club.
Kind Tennis Fan (
talk)
02:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent vandalism from various IP addresses and recently created accounts, changing BLP of the person in question, removing sourced contents and adding unsourced contents and misinformation.
HistorianDele (
talk)
13:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary extended confirmed protection:BLP policy violations – BLP violations, including by auto-confirmed accounts, resuming about a week after prior protection expired and re-occurring frequently since then.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
14:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Persistent addition of unsourced content, by a registered user and their sock puppet, both now blocked, by an IP user adding the same content, also now blocked, and just now by another IP user - same content again.
Tacyarg (
talk)
22:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Because sockpuppetteers are known to "wait out" protection periods to attack the article again. Leaving an article protected will either force them to stop going after it or waste time setting up accounts to bypass it (thus making them more obvious to any passing administrators or Checkusers). —
Jéské Courianov^_^vSource assessment notes18:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Recently today, an IP user vandalised Just Dance 2022 with his sense of humor. Also today, another IP user added his original research about to both articles its "alternate name". I want to bring this to light because of the history of both articles being vandalised by IPs and new users. (2022 having someone add a CupcakKe song, and 2023 Edition having someone add random songs)
Reason: The company responsible for the tournament has repeatedly attempted to edit-war in a 27000+ byte list of every winner of every variant of the tournament, which numerous editors including myself have labelled as advertising, violating WP:NOTWEBHOST (
[39]), and Wikipedia [being] not an appropriate place for these lists (
[40]). Despite this, they have tried to force it in under
plus
2001:56b:3ff1:1f4d:c499:c323:8671:c49b left me a nice personal attack on the article's AfD page (
[47]).
The fact that they used both static and dynamic IPs makes me think a simple range-block won't fix it, so I'd like to request protection. Ideally I'd prefer ECP--I can absolutely see the company making ten dummy edits just to resume edit-warring again, and I won't be able to revert them at that point--but even semiprotection would be better than nothing.
2603:8001:4542:28FB:2DC0:9C2E:6D19:E08D (
talk)
23:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)(Send talk messages
here instead)reply
Reason: That company has repeatedly attempted to edit-war in a 27000+ byte list of every winner of every variant of
DMC World DJ Championships into that article, which I already requested protection for above. If that does get protected, I will bet everyone here 50 cents that they'll start targeting their own article too if they're still able to edit it.
2603:8001:4542:28FB:2DC0:9C2E:6D19:E08D (
talk)
23:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)(Send talk messages
here instead)reply
Reason: IP editors keep changing his team/job title despite being reverted even though the coaching hire is still not official/hasn't been announced by the team. --
ZooBlazer02:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent
disruptive editing - Some IPs of Filipino origin put again and change the dual nationality of this actress both in the short description and in the initial sentence at the point where it is described and persist in changing partner in the infobox, her personal life.
190.167.41.207 (
talk)
03:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hiring rumors are leading to many poorly-sourced and unsourced edits as well as some vandalism. Please protect it for several days or a week. There was one autoconfirmed editor involved who has been warned multiple times about this recently (and I warned them again), but semi-protection might be enough here. Thanks.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
09:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Vysoká úroveň IP vandalismu - dodání odstavce o falešné sestře, protože aktérka zdravotní sestra prokazatelně je a má v ruce i diplom o dalším vzdělání. Odstavec o kauze falešné sestry by měl být smazaný, protože je to vysoce manipulativní odstavec, nikde Petra Rédová neprohlásila,že je sestra z brněnské JIP, je zdravotní sestra na JIP v Anglii a to naprosto prokazatelně. Někdo do článku dává záměrné dezinformace, které aktérku poškozují. Důkazy má v rukou i její právník, který tyto manipulace sleduje.
89.176.123.5 (
talk)
09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism has returned yet again and editors just continuously have to revert it - can we finally set an indefinite protection for this article instead of this going on back and forth repeatedly?.
Raladic (
talk)
17:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This page clearly violates Wikipedia's "purpose of Wikipedia" and "neutral point of view policy." I can see why this page is classified as a "contentious topic page." The subject matter of this page is a historical event of legislation which it should be about, instead it reads as the ramblings of a liberal political activist. It is rife with a cacophony of political bias and ideological beliefs all backed up with a boatload of unscientific political opinion articles as "sources," which themselves have no sources. This "encyclopedic" account of historical legislation is completely lacking in any form of objectivity. There is no question what the "protected author's" beliefs and political opinions are. I believe this entire article should be scrapped and built from the ground up by people who respect what Wikipedia strives for. I hope someone with love for Wikipedia and the understanding of how important recording objective truth is receives this. For posterity.
I am the representative of the public organization "TETChange". Please kindly remove the company TETChanee from the information about money laundering. that is 100% false. The company is legal. It works as a public organization. The Editor gave false information about U.S. sanctions, since the company TetChange has never been under any sanctions.
This type of disinformation can mislead and put us in the black PR list, which is something the editor should be responsible for. We ensure that our clients are always safe and can rely on us fully. Please do not dodge our name. Thank you in advance.
Spacenan8 (
talk)
15:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – For whatever reason, this page is targeted for vandalism. Apparently it's being retained for WP:HISPAGES, so if it can't be deleted, encase it in carbonite.
One cookie (
talk)
16:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I agree with this and would like to request indefinite semi-protection if possible, since this is a BLP. Since at least early November, several IPs have been repeatedly changing "co-founded" to "joined", without verification and in contravention of the citations, regarding a philanthropy the subject co-founded.
Softlavender (
talk)
02:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent vandalism & disruptive edits over at least the last few years. Requesting semi-protection of a few years as a starting point, given that this page hasn't been protected before (as far as I can see). All the best. —
a smart kitten[
meow01:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Geraldo Perez: Is there an obvious reason the categories added by the IPs are not appropriate? If so, please explain on article talk and try to engage the IPs, for example by linking to talk section in an edit summary.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hard to engage with a dynamic IP - different IP in the /64 range each time. Obvious reason is in my edit summaries which is usually sufficient for most editors. Those are categories for character articles, not articles about a novel. Also one of the categories is covered by an existing one which is appropriate for a novel article.
Geraldo Perez (
talk)
04:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Very low quality sources are reporting that this man has been arrested for killing his wife. I have been unable to find any reliable sources that are willing to report this at this time, but this story has been added and expanded on throughout the day.
LM2000 (
talk)
07:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Its hard to justify protection just yet, there is just the single instance of adding the questionable material, and they seem to have done so in good faith. I would agree that the sources are NOT up to par (although it may very well be true). For now, I agree with you reverting it out, and being a BLP, there is a degree of exemption for reverting it back out even after 3RR considering the sources. I would suggest leaving a note on the talk page, and the editors' talk page over it. Until there is decent sourcing, the material should stay out, but until it is more than a single instance, it is hard to protect it. I will leave this here to stew, and see what happens over the next few hours, rather than outright "decline".
Dennis Brown2¢08:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined@
LM2000: My instinct is to protect but there is nothing on talk discussing the sources and there are sources with the claim although I don't know if they are RS. Try
WP:BLP to see their reaction to the news reporting. Given a small hint of agreement at BLP I would semi it for a couple of weeks.
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It has since gotten better coverage. The previous sources were definitely unreliable, but the situation has passed that point now. Feel free to close this.
LM2000 (
talk)
03:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined@
LG-Gunther: It's hard to justify protection when there is no explanation of the problem. It might be obvious to someone familiar with the topic but it is not clear to me. Please create the article talk page with a section that politely explains why the IP edits are unhelpful or not supported by reliable sources.
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirm protection due to persistent sockpuppetry and other long-running policy issues on an article related to a conventionally (rather than community-identified) contentious topic. Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Combatuser1 for the most recent persistent sockpuppet to frequently disrupt the article. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
17:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent moving of Moonbin (whom has decreased) from Past members to Active members. In which, a recent (kind of) example that I could think of is Linkin Park which also has similar issues previously where
this discussion is of relevant. — 🧧🍊
Paper9oll 🍊🧧 (
🔔 •
📝)02:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined@
The Herald: It's hard to justify protection when there is no explanation of the problem. It might be obvious to someone familiar with the topic but it is not clear to me. Please explain on article talk and try to engage other editors with a link to the talk section.
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined@
Filmssssssssssss: I blocked the IP and don't see any other recent problems. Pending changes is a pain because vandalism still occurs and has to be examined and reverted. Let me know or ask again here if it recurs.
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Disruption once in February and once in January. Before that, disruption occurred in August.
Sdrqaz (
talk)
04:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism by
80.136.196.48 who's also making trouble on the Wiki pages of Black's family members:
Claims subject's daughter Celine is "non-notable" and deletes any mention of her,
[51] even though Celine acted alongside her mother on film and has been mentioned in the press countless times.
Makes similar edits to the Wiki pages of Black's son
[52] and sister.
[53][54]
Puts "Conflict of Interest" tag on page for no reason.
[55] Claims in edit summary that content is "unreferenced", which is a complete lie and an obvious one at that.
Deems entire family of
Theodore McKeldin as "non-notable" and deletes properly sourced content, including the acknowledgment of a deceased grandson who twice ran for public office.
[56]
Hello - please excuse me if I am not reporting this in the correct format. A recently registered editor,
Deep Purple 2013 is making a series of edits to the
Karen Black article together with articles related to her:
[58],
[59],
[60] and
[61] Such an emphasis on one family to the exclusion of other subjects is sufficient enough, but the added content is of personal nature including family photographs. Advise regarding COI has been posted, but it has been ignored. Could someone investigate?
Reason: A recently blocked editor
[62] is hopping IPs and repeating the same shenanigans.
[63][64] Not only does Black's page need protection from the blocked editor, so do the pages of her family members.
Deep Purple 2013 (
talk)
09:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This is the second time the COI editor has made a false allegation of vandalism. After the first false accusation an admin. advised them that the edits were not vandalism, and indeed expressed sympathy for the edits. I raised the COI issues on the Admin. Notice Board (incidents) after which an Admin posted a message on the COI editor's talk page. The COI editor ignored the message and continued with COI edits.
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism due to recent intimate video leak (see
here for coverage). I know it's not too much but as this page has few edits overall, this does mean a big percentage is vandalism.
GnocchiFan (
talk)
14:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. I would like to see some talk page consensus about what makes the Qatar visit different from the others. Right now, it looks like a content disagreement.
Joyous!Noise!16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Frequent vandalism by IP users. This time it appears to be fans of certain teams artificially inflating wins and statistics (I was able to revert that vandalism manually). Vandalism has been a problem with this page in the past as well.
Captain Parmenter (
talk)
16:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined This is a content dispute and we're not going to fully protect some article for it. You can try to address the problem on the talk page. Also, your opponent is not a vandal, though they are editing somewhat disruptively and I warned them for it.
Drmies (
talk)
17:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
hi, the history shows numerous before that suspected sockpuppet in light of recent wars and since Trump presidency. isn't there a protection level in between?
Reason: High level of the unsourced changes, disruptive edits, and edit warring from various single-use IPs, in which numerous of them seem to be proxies according to the IP Quality Score website.
ImaSandwich860 (
talk)
21:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism. Please protect this article for around 6 months or a year with semi-protection to prevent defamatory and false information from being added and seen by public as a trusted info.
Natsuikomin (
talk)
00:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Pretty much a constant stream of edit-warring vandalism that has led to a couple of blocks already, may well be shitting IP or shocking.
Slatersteven (
talk)
14:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Currently pending-changes protected (as a result of
a previous request), but is receiving persistent vandalism - as far as I can see, all of the non-autoconfirmed edits since pending-changes was put in place on the 29th Jan have been reverted (22 edits, if I can count correctly). I'm therefore requesting an upgrade to semiprotection, due to the high rate of vandalism by IP editors, which seems like it may have increased since the 29th. Pinging
Robertsky as the protecting admin. All the best. —
a smart kitten[
meow02:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: High level of IP vandalism by multinationals, possibly for political and nationalist reasons. Very frequently visited article and is a very popular topic. The page seems to be used as a source by many outside websites.
Yourlocallordandsavior (
talk)
00:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Two attempts recently to change a program named in the article from The Edge to The Edging ([76], [77]; I'm assuming as a reference to
Edging (sexual practice)). The sentence in question is unsourced, but I found
this &
this that refer to the program as the former, while I couldn't find any sources that refer to it as the latter.
I found the first diff through Huggle, while the last diff went a few days before I noticed it by chance. Looking through the history, it appears that The edging was also inserted here in 2021 & wasn't removed until 2023. I therefore think that this page would benefit from pending-changes protection. Best,. —
a smart kitten[
meow00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Johnuniq: I could do that - it’s just that the topic area isn’t one that I’m overly familiar with (as well as it being more of a content decision than a counter-vandalism one - the latter being what I’m currently more familiar with). Having said that, though, I am now tempted to
blow up the unsourced paragraphs.Even if the sentence is removed, though, I still think the page would benefit from pending-changes - for example, edits in 2021 (the one linked above & this) also introduced other pieces of vandalism that weren’t caught for a fair while. I’m worried that even if the sentence is removed, the article would still be a probable target for other instances of (potentially long-lasting) vandalism, due to being an article about a school. All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow14:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Disruption is really not even heavy enough to warrant pending-changes protection. I have watchlisted.
Lectonar (
talk)
08:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Checking to see if protection is necessary. @
Ser!: Not only does it appear there's action by IPs that are socks of a blocked user, but there are also BLP concerns when the material the IP removed is readded. The page may need protected, but it might not be the version you expect that gets protected because of the BLP issues. —C.Fred (
talk)
15:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – After the page protection expired, vandal IPs and other users have struck again to vandalize the page. I think this should be protected indefinitely to conform to BLP standards.
NoobThreePointOh (
talk)
13:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. protection duration is usually slowly extended; it's quite rare that pages get indefinitely protected from the start.
Lectonar (
talk)
13:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I was mulling this BLP connection for a bit, but the character seems to be so ingrained in Filipino culture that it might as well apply.
Lectonar (
talk)
14:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: This looks like an edit war. I can see that the IP is trying to impose a new version, but I don't think either version reflects the source. I have updated the article to reflect the source. Hopefully that will encourage all editors to leave of the edit warring.
Yaris678 (
talk)
17:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite template protection: Highly Visible Template. You see, that's the reason why the autotaxobox system is fundamentally broken. Big clades having their phylogeny in flux, meaning that we end up with obscure clades like this one for recent phylogenetic proposals, that end up transcluded on 150 thousand pages. And then, someone forgets to template protect it, and, well, you have a template transcluded on more than half of the insect pages that's a complete vulnerability. It could be solved by making skip-templates for all the insect orders directly calling Insecta as parent, so that this one is only transcluded in the handful of insect order pages. Probably a better solution than having to protect every single clade and likely missing some, although that might take a while (and a lot of template-protected edit requests) to implement. Really, we need skip-templates, putting template protection on this thing is more of a band-aid but the mere fact of this being a vulnerability already bugs me.
Chaotıċ Enby (
talk ·
contribs)
13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a content dispute in which both editors are editwarring over whether this is a documentary (which the OP added to it again after going to AN#) and whether the Nazis were the main victimes of WW3. I'm involved and don't think protection will be neutral. Page bans to let them duke it out on the talk page?
Doug Wellertalk14:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Fully protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. And...
Wikipedia's
protection policy does not allow the administrator who instates a
page protection because of an ongoing edit dispute to pick a particular version to protect. They have to protect the most recent version; at most they may revert blatant vandalism. In a content dispute it is impossible to make everyone happy; this is not the administrator's fault, it is simply a consequence of the underlying dispute. See The Wrong Version for an essay about this exact type of situation. There is no point in lobbying administrators to edit or revert a protected page, since they are generally not allowed to do that. If you're unhappy about the protected version, the fastest and best way to do something about it is to resolve the content dispute on the talk page and ask for the page to be unprotected.
– robertsky (
talk)
16:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Please undo all the edits done on 12th February and restore the page to as it is before 12th February. There is a high vandalism going on regarding the date of creation of the news paper with edits and counter edits.
Abhirampraj (
talk)
09:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason:Full protection: Persistent disruptive editing - This Unser who keeps vandalizing the Canadian National 7312 article, is doing the same thing on the Strasburg Rail Road article. This IP user keeps constantly deleting CN 7312 from the equipment section and refuses to take the issue to the talk page, this article needs to be protected indefinitely because the IP refuses to stop.
2601:188:CC81:C420:3167:82FD:8FC6:237E (
talk)
15:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined for now, since while the edit warring has been fierce, we haven't seen the two participants have been given enough time since being warned to take the hint and work it out on the talk page.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined. It's been, what, maybe two hours since you suggested they get involved on the talk page? Let's give them a little more time to give that a try.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason:Edit War, People changing the date that the State was created, it was created in 1918 per article but users without account keep changing it to 1917, and users keep puting the fake map on the infobox again,and i talked about the map in discussion to remove it.
Jaztie não é árabe (
talk)
19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent disruptive editing, mostly from a variety of IP addresses. The list article's entries on Malaysia and Israel have been subject to the majority of the disruption.
Declangi (
talk)
22:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite create protection: Repeatedly recreated – This non-notable topic has been the focus of more than one Nigerian editor. Because socking has been used for this topic, I suspect more socks will re-create the article as has already happened once. Chris Troutman (
talk)22:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent addition of
unsourced or poorly sourced content – Addition from IPv4 and IPv6 of content to the infobox without any source and which is not mentioned in the body of the article. Their response to an edit summary focused on sourcing and
WP:OR is "Any lack of critical thinking and basic comparison skills from a random user are also unsubstantiated as well. Study Irish mythology and look at Cethlenn’s role in the mythology. Short sightedness is acceptable but closed off stupidity isn’t." So, no prospect of a reliable source.
NebY (
talk)
20:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined, the IP has only made two edits, although I can see where this is disruptive. Still, a little premature to protect if the only problem is one IP editor that hasn't crossed the line to be blocked yet.
Dennis Brown2¢22:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done because vague requests are not actionable. Furthermore, @
Ahoover2: You didn't read the directions above. You must make edit requests on the article's talk page. Furthermore, your request must be specific, like "change X to Y" citing reliable sources as appropriate.
Reason: Page was
previously protected (diffs in link) for ten days. Hours after expiration,
disruptive edits resumed by same IP
2601:205:4300:54F0. I have reverted dozens of unsourced, disruptive, and non-
WP:RS edits by this user on this page alone since October 2023. This behavior extends to many other pages as well (
Matt Ross, for one) and none of my requests in edit summaries or his talk pages have been acknowledged or heeded. Can this page please be protected and something please be done about this editor?
Rift (
talk)
23:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request permanent semi-protection. I have no idea why this article gets targeted, but it does. As soon as the protection comes off, the vandalism starts again. It's happened at least 3 times now. Just permanently semi-protect it already so we can all stop wasting our time. IP's or new accounts wishing to make good faith edits can always request them on the talk page.
MaxBrowne2 (
talk)
03:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting semi-protection as Niji just made the worst PR move they possibly could and we're likely to see a new wave of people coming in.
Rockman1159 (
talk)
02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Moderate level of IP and new user vandalism: Page history shows about ten instances of vandalism since September 2023. Requesting autoprotection or higher either permanently or for a certain period of time. 2003LN605:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – It appears that the blocked Commons user Commonists is using multiple IP addresses to constantly restore an image they uploaded. This disruption last happened in May 2023 and the page was actually previously protected for a month back then for that reason. —
AP 499D25(talk)08:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. A section listing the names of their editing staff, with mini resumes of each has been repeatedly added in December, January and February.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
11:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request Semi-protection for persistent disruptive editing by IP addresses of various ranges tied to block evasion by banned user Jarcilla.
AbleGus (
talk)
03:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Block evading disruptive editor has returned many times since the last protection expired, both with new accounts and IPs. Requesting something longer than 3 months this time. Thanks.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
08:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Looks like the talk page edit requests are handled in a timely fashion, most of them being rejected. That the "editing has been reduced" is an expected byproduct of article protection.
Favonian (
talk)
11:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Disruptive editing by IP user 118.140.29.162 who appears to be acting on behalf of the company. Editor has rewritten article to remove all criticism, citing no sources other than BNN Breaking itself. Also reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia. The article for the company's founder
Gurbaksh Chahal has already been protected due to conflicts of interest and disruptive editing.
DanielMichaelPerry (
talk)
16:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring – Instead of issuing a block to just one editor...let's see if we can get them all talking on the proper talk page. Moxy-20:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to mount a campaign against that policy in general, but I do think, in this case, that it is the wrong policy for all pages covering candidates in the most important election in history. Even false information that is live for 2 minutes can sway voters.
Elmeter (
talk)
18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: This might not be needed now that I have started an RfC, but there have been continued edit wars over the infobox. I'm not suggesting full protection though, since it's only a small part of the article that is getting edit warred. As far I know, this has been happening on-and-off for many years now, where a new or inexperienced editor will make a change, it gets reverted (usually with a string of further edit warring by other editors), and then when it comes time to discuss they are nowhere to be found. And it still seems to happen despite a note on the article saying not to change without consensus, which has been there since at least 2021 I believe.
Sagflaps (
talk)
16:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined No, protection is indeed not necessary now that you started an RFC. Sagflaps, you are lucky that most of Moxy's linked diffs are a month old because that kind of blithe defiance of existing consensus as indicated by not just an inline hidden comment next to the text you repeatedly changed but an edit notice would have moved me to block you from the page had it been brought to administrative attention in a timely fashion.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
People are also making good faith edits without consulting proper sources about the date, Confusing the date of publishing(Today the 13th) as the date of death(Actual Date of Death was yesterday, the 12th)
Ioangogo (
talk)
17:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I don't see much actual vandalism caused by the IPs. There is quite a lot of good anon editing, other than the confusion over the death date (which I believe is good faith, if mistaken).
Joyous!Noise!18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Well I mostly requested the protection so that the people who were going back and forth would actually discuss it on the talk page instead of the group constantly reverting each other.
Shadow311 (
talk)
19:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Previous protection expired on 28 January, almost every edit since then from non-extended confirmed users has been vandalism or disruptive in some way. Requesting indefinite ECP per
WP:GENSEX.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
02:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Multiple users changing the infobox picture even though the current one (as of 14 February 2024 9:02 AM CET) was decided upon by consensus. 🔥
Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did08:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, the IP is correct that Newsweek is not considered "Generally reliable" past 2013, per
this RFC, so them removing your one addition using that source might be considered reasonable.
Dennis Brown2¢09:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The source is not "Newsweek" directly but a quote from an expert, Nicholas Drummond, who has confirmed the estimate as you can see in the talk page. Furthermore, I do not see it as behavior marked by good faith to cite a source for 2 years with a clear typographical error within it, then when the error is discovered, first the error and the original source are defended and then the source it's completely deleted.
Schopy1988 (
talk)
10:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Every edit since October 2023 has been either vandalism or editors reverting said vandalism, with vandalism occurring multiple times every month since October 2023.
Panian51315:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – There was a recent incidence of vandalism just a few days after I published this article. It's similar to
Incel and I'm expecting a lot of vandalism/disruptive editing to come up here – I think pending changes protection or semi-protection would be helpful. TLA(talk)00:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 2 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. We don't not preemptively protected pages, especially at the levels you are asking for. However, I recognise that there have been some recent disruptive edits which warrant at least a semi protection.
– robertsky (
talk)
15:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I've been trying to remove unsourced or badly sourced material from this article and have been reverted by IPs from the University of Milwaulkee. Their last edit summary reads "undid revision 1207328510 by Doug Weller (talk (A/CU/OS)) Conventional chronologists like you should leave Rohl's work alone. This is New Chronology, not Conventional chronology". They've been adding unsourced since Feb. 6th. Thanks.
Doug Wellertalk15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done – Assuming we're talking about the last paragraph of
Greek alphabet#Archaic variants, it begins with By the late fifth century BC, it was commonly used by many Athenians. In c. 403 BC, ... Then, at the end of the paragraph, it says By the end of the fourth century BC, ... In other words, it outlines a development in the course of nearly a century, so all is as it should be.
Favonian (
talk)
21:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Edit warring. I made a change to an infobox to remove excess capitalization. Since then, the changes made been undone three times by anonymous IPs, with no reason given. Both of the IPs used have only been used for undoing the changes and haven't performed any other edits.
LicenceToCrenellate (
talk)
20:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. It looks like it's one editor on an IPv6 address. Regardless, let's try communicating with them by using more meaningful edit summaries and by using their talk page (see
WP:BITE). I left them a talk page notice just now, but please warn them if they keep it up.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
02:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: With his recent passing, there will be lots of people coming to this new article. There has been a little vandalism, though nothing too crazy. I've also noticed a lot of new accounts and IPs are editing this article, some of which aren't the best at keeping things at a neutral point and agreeing on where information should go. The article is also being edited frequently, which results in lots of edit conflicts before you can publish changes. For this, I'm requesting semi-protection.
Autograph84 (
talk)
04:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I semied it because it did not appear to be protected but then noticed some strange stuff which made me look again and it appears that I downgraded it from ECP to semi so I reinstated the ECP.
Johnuniq (
talk)
06:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – edit warring. The most recent winner was cited under his real name, but was listed under a stage name for his previous nomination. One editor keeps changing the recent nomination to the stage name over the objections of others listing it under his real name.
CRBoyer05:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Article related to Joe Biden creates BLP issues, up for AfD. Already attracting unsourced editing. Suggest Extended Protection to match mother article.
Rambling Rambler (
talk)
20:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Note: While this draft was created by said now blocked user, it was created before the block, so it isn't a G5 deletion (which would have been my way of dealing with it, and fully protect after the deletion); but we shouldn't be fully protecting a draft which has just been declined, but not rejected outright.
Lectonar (
talk)
15:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)reply
All edits to the draft over the past year look like Meher socks and IPs, seems safe to say it would have been G13'd by now without the block evasion.
Belbury (
talk)
08:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – SPA vandal IP accounts repeatedly changing this Archive. Please protect it permanently for only confirmed named accounts usage.
Shearonink (
talk)
16:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
In the "Sexual and gender-based violence' subsection under Allegations of War Crimes, the first paragraph ends with the sentence The New York Times reported that "videos of naked and bloodied women filmed by Hamas on the day of the attack, and photographs of bodies taken at the sites afterwards, suggest that women were sexually targeted by their attackers." (Reference #615 and 616)
Two paragraphs down, the second sentence is The BBC reported that "Videos of naked and bloodied women filmed by Hamas on the day of the attack, and photographs of bodies taken at the sites afterwards, suggest that women were sexually targeted by their attackers." (Reference 621)
Please add reference 621 to the first paragraph, and add 'and the BBC' following The New York Times, and remove the whole sentence in the third paragraph.
Declined –
Pages are not protected preemptively. I see no disruption at this page since the AfD last April. I can't see any basis even for a short term semi-protection at this time. I do appreciate the effort made at the draftspace. Nobody's banging on this door so I may not bolt it, per protection policy.
BusterD (
talk)
14:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Ten-month extended confirm following long-lasting disruption, dispute, and vandalism to this article from IPs, registered users, and socks. Subject also falls under
CTOPS for
IPA, so I would encourage logging it as an enforcement action. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
15:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Actually, scratch that, lets go with an indefinite of some sort–this article has been protected four times in the last five years with little effect following the expiration of the protections. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
16:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The disruption does not seem to me consistent enough yet to justify an indef. But I will log it at CTOPS and update the talk page.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: IP vandalism mostly based on changing the name of the company without providing reliable sources, as far as I'm aware (from checking news and company website), the name hasn't changed at all. EncodedTalk to me!15:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Long long history of socking on this article across an entire decade -
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amalloyz. That includes
attempts to remove facts about the company's lawsuits from the article which I have no doubt will be repeated in future. I've added this one to my watchlist, but I think an indef semi would help reduce the impact of UPE here. BrigadierG (
talk)
17:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-Protection: Medium-High Level of continuous vandalism by IP user 180.28.59.165 even after warnings to stop being fradulent. I request this page to be Semi-Protected indefinitely.
Avelina925 (
talk)
03:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Lectonar: Sorry, I fully protected this a moment after you declined it (before seeing your response). It looks like the dispute has been going on for a long time. I think this might be one of those cases where full protection might increase the odds of a real discussion from everyone, are you okay with leaving protection in place?
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
10:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Daniel Quinlan: No problem at all, but after a look at the talk-page discussions, I thought the article and the discussion might benefit from some fresh eyes, and DR-processes are helpful for that.
Lectonar (
talk)
10:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite Semi-Protection: It would be just good if the page is downgraded to indefinite semi-protection because editing is well and the website should have more people volunteering to edit article.
Avelina925 (
talk)
04:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Vandalism. People trolling and vandalizing the page with "Lobotomy dash", "normal difficulty face", "FIRE IN THE HOLE!!!" and other topics taken from Geometry Dash memes. 🔥
Jalapeño🔥Stupid stuff I did13:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
You are an NgfUK sock making extensive restorations of the content you were blocked for adding last year. You are removing good academic sources from the body and adding an infobox full of dubious blog sources, OR and POV captions
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – I spent an hour trying to validate some information that ended up being vandalism ... I think that medical pages should be set to semi, because they are widely used by the public, and they are also difficult to review for accuracy when pests randomly change values or technical terms [5.0–7.2 mmol/L (90–130 mg/dL)]. • Bobsd • (
talk)
17:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Agreed, that kind of vandalism could be critically harmful to people. Alternatively, a disclaimer at the top of the page? Probably not the place to discuss this either way.
Dialmayo (
talk) (
Contribs) she/her
17:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Page was
previously protected (diffs in link) for ten days. Hours after expiration, disruptive edits resumed by same IP
2601:205:4300:54F0. Editor received 48 hour ban. After expiration, unsourced edits continued
yet again.
I have reverted dozens of unsourced, disruptive, and non-WP:RS edits by this user on this page alone since October 2023. This behavior extends to many other pages as well (
Max Minghella, for one) and none of my requests in edit summaries or his talk pages have been acknowledged or heeded. Can this page please be protected and something please be done about this
WP:NOTLISTENING editor (again)?
Rift (
talk)
01:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. And really, I think it's a serious stretch to put it under PIA, at least the way it's currently being edited.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Over the past couple of days, some IPs have risen to Trump's defense, apparently prompted by "evidence" revealed by
Jesse Watters. The IPs have yet to present this "evidence", only claiming that it exists. –
Skywatcher68 (
talk)
16:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. See recent disruptive account talk page. Probably doesn't need to be long, just long enough to make them give up after a block. 【
💬】18:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This happened after a recent semi-protect of this page due to similar BLP violations. Maybe longer since the previous one didn't seem to deter. 【
💬】18:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I had already declined the AIV on the IP because they stopped editing after being warned. But protection is an easier argument. I will also put a CTOPS notice on the talk page.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Armegon: While I have protected it, there is not much in the way of explanations for the reverts of unsourced changes, either in edit summaries or user talk pages. More explaining would be better as per
WP:BITE.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
22:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Since competition finished, high level of editors disputing who came third in the competition, where the critieria are listed by the event organiser and appropriately referenced. It may just need a week or so for cooling down. Similar request being made to parent article at
AFC Asian CupMatilda Maniac (
talk)
22:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Since competition finished, high level of editors disputing who came third in the competition, where the critieria are listed by the event organiser and appropriately referenced. It may just need a week or so for cooling down. Similar request being made to parent article at
2023 AFC Asian CupMatilda Maniac (
talk)
22:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent adding of trivial information / in-jokes. Does not happen very often but seems to persist in the article for a while before being reverted, possibly slipping under the radar. Semi-protection would stop this.
GnocchiFan (
talk)
21:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. You could perhaps try adding an inline comment or two in hopes of discouraging it, but there's not enough disruption to justify protection.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
22:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
Sumanuil: I protected it for a long time but did so reluctantly because there is nothing on article talk. There should be a polite explanation that the problematic users could be shown. I know they are unlikely to see it, but we're supposed to make it possible.
Johnuniq (
talk)
03:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Sumanuil: No, new editors are supposed to get a quick explanation mentioning
WP:RS and the particular source which supports the current name. Supposing the explanation was in a section called "Name", you would add "please see
Talk:Arabic rice#Name" in the reverting edit summary. That is about all we can do to alert the warriors. It also tells other people that good efforts to explain the situation have been made.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism. Some anon keep changed number of aircraft constantly for almost one month. Already request page protection in 23 January 2024 and approved by admin for 10 days protection. After that the vandalism repeated. Maybe need to be protected for long period more or indefinitely perhaps?
Kistara (
talk)
02:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Pending changes: Persistent target of spamming and disruptive editing; low volume of edits. Edits from non-autoconfirmed users could benefit from review.
MaterialsPsych (
talk)
01:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of six months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. @
MaterialsPsych: Pending changes is supposed to be used after trying semi-protection. It is also a pain because the spam keeps getting added and people have to check it then revert. I don't see anything useful for a long time so have protected.
Johnuniq (
talk)
04:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
MaterialsPsych: I'm not questioning your decision, but, unless I have missed something, "Pending changes is supposed to be used after trying semi-protection" is incorrect, and better described extended-confirmed protection. The main reason to go for semi rather than PC is the frequency of the editing. In my view, avoiding reviewers having to look at spam is also a good reason, in borderline cases like this.
Yaris678 (
talk)
07:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protectedindefinitely. I see plenty of vandalism there. If ECP had existed when this was full-protected in 2018, that's what would have been used. Therefore, I have reduced it to ECP. The protection log suggests that semiprotection wasn't working. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
09:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done. @
Missbellanash: There is no article by that name. If you mean
Israel–Hamas war, then you are welcome to make an edit request. Be sure your request is of the form "change X to Y" or "add X after Y" or "delete X", and explain your reasoning, citing reliable sources. Vague, nonspecific requests are not actionable and will be declined. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
09:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Recurring vandalism and/or disruptive edits to infobox since February 1, and intermittently before that (e.g.
[96],
[97],
[98]). Request previously made on February 3 and IP range was blocked, but other IPs continue to make similar disruptions since then (e.g.
[99],
[100],
[101]).
R Prazeres (
talk)
15:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Three-month semi-protection due to persistent IP edit-warring and disruption, almost exclusively about the terminology "assault rifle". Alternatives to protection have been attempted with failure to prevent the same disruption. ~
Pbritti (
talk)
16:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
Reason: There have been no disruptive edits or regular-normal *leaning to* non-disruptive edits to this page. Replace x with y as desired/required. bye
Missbellanash (
talk)
15:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Sockpuppetry from a wide range of IPv6s has continued since the previous semiprotection expired. I'm coming to RFPP rather than SPI as - in my experience - page protection is a more useful remedy than IPv6 whack-a-mole in this case. All the best. —
a smart kitten[
meow16:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The last 4 months of edits to this page are just one unregistered user edit warring with multiple other editors over the genre of the song. Latest protection ended a few days ago, and they're back at it.
Onorem (
talk)
20:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because none of the other TCA Awards pages are semi-protected. Also, I need to change/restore outdated wordings about the
2023 Hollywood labor disputes that are no longer relevant and was unnecessary reverted in November, which caused the year-long semi-protection, I can't wait 9 more months for that and I think we should end it early.
2603:6081:893D:13AC:ED93:33A3:420C:896F (
talk)
01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, nobody has ever made an edit request on the talk page. The semi-protection doesn't seem to be inconveniencing people very much. If an uninvolved admin thinks it's worth it to unprotect the page, I guess we can just use it as bait, like a
honeypot. However, this is a really persistent LTA who makes death threats and returns to the same pages over the course of years. The IP who made that edit is currently blocked for 2 years. I understand that long-term blocks and semi-protection are a pain for uninvolved editors, but the solution is really quite easy:
create an account. It's very rare that the pages end up under
ECP.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
03:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to bring attention to the Wikipedia page for "Meitei Pangal," which has been subject to frequent and inaccurate edits. Unfortunately, various attempts to rectify these changes have been unsuccessful.
To ensure the accuracy and integrity of the information presented on the Meitei Pangal page, I kindly request that you consider implementing page protection. This measure will help prevent further misinformation and maintain the reliability of the content.
I am committed to contributing valid and well-supported information to the page, and I believe that protecting it temporarily will allow for a more thoughtful and accurate representation.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate the work of the Wikipedia community in maintaining a reliable and accessible source of information.
Nawajk12 (
talk)
04:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done. @
Livelikemusic: With edit summaries like Per ib, ONce again, same as before, and Continued vandalism., it's no wonder there is edit warring on this article. Also, it's not vandalism. Read
WP:VANDAL. There's not enough disruption to justify protection and it's not surprising there is some disruption given the
bitey edit summaries and lack of helpful communication.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
07:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: vandalism and confusion/trolling over title status. There was a Twitter post recently where he has shown a badge with "grandmaster" on it, although this is most likely a joke and not proof of GM status.
Electricmaster (
talk)
08:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Since 3 Feb, multiple IPs (IPv4 and IP6) have been changing the # of awards and nominations in the infobox (at least 5 times to numbers that are false) and have been reverted. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
15:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Extended confirmed protection as the subject became an UFC champion as of now and due to the current protection, the page is completely outdated. The matter of nationality should not stop the page from being correctly edited by other users. Those that engage in edit warring should be punished for that, not the page.
Gsfelipe94 (
talk)
13:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
A discussion should be created on his talk page regarding that and if necessary the pages related to it should be protected from unregistered users. He represents Georgia in the UFC and he's listed related to that country in official medias. He "represents" Spain as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean the flag should be listed alongside or instead the other one.
Gsfelipe94 (
talk)
15:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I've just read it and it seems pointless the way it went through. More editors should be gathered for a constructive discussion. Cassiopeia is usually very stubborn (had a lot of situation with changing fighters' last names recently). I'll reply the same thing I've said above.
Gsfelipe94 (
talk)
16:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected. If someone were to make an edit request that actually follows the edit request guideline by being followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately then someone could update the article. Unfortunately, little or no effort has been made by anyone involved in the edit war to resolve the content dispute.Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
17:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Tyagi's are Kshatriya Brahmin because they are descendants of Lord Parshuram and he is a brahmin who done deeds of Kshatriya so he is considered as Kshatriya Brahmin so Tyagi's are also Kshatriya Brahmin
Lucifer115 (
talk)
17:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. Very little editing at all over the past couple of years, and editors seem more than capable of handling disruption.
Daniel Case (
talk)
19:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Vandalism and useless edits from an LTA. The entire TP history is just LTA fighting with others. The page (not talk page) was also protected to prevent disruption. Looks like the LTA has now moved onto the talk page. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)23:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection Since December 16, a user using numerous IP addresses has attempted to add unsourced information regarding this wrestler's status as a "heel" or "tweener" despite several editors explaining the information needs to be sourced and not editorialized. Users refuses to accept this and adds false sources stating that it backs this information up when it does not, or just mentions other supporting unreliable websites as a source in the edit summaries.
NJZombie (
talk)
04:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected – Please use an
edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page. Protection duration isn't a valid basis for reducing protection. "Indefinite" means any length of time, and it was set that way for a reason. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
01:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Request move protection. Title of this article, which is under Arbitration Committee jurisdiction and is highly contentious, was changed three times by three different editors last night without prior discussion. Article has been restored to its previous name prior to this move-warring. Due to technical glitches, restoration of the previous page title was complex, time-consuming and difficult, and required noticeboard intervention.
Coretheapple (
talk)
21:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason:This page is always getting vandalized which I believe also comes from the same person. Every time he gets blocked he creates a new account or uses an IP one. Perhaps protecting it would stop this.
Javext (
talk)
12:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. This page has been at indefinite semi-protection since 2018. I see no active disruption on this page in several years, so the current level of protection seems sufficient per
WP:ARBECR.
BusterD (
talk)
14:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Are you saying you are Siddharth Menon? If so you have a
conflict of interest which you should declare; additionally, you should avoid editing this article. There doesn't appear to be any recent vandalism, so I can't see why this would be protected. — Czello(
music)14:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The article keep providing misinformation on the coverage availability (vandalism), in which until now, there was no confirmation about which networks in both Brazil and Indonesia will aired the whole matches for
this season.
VernardoLau (
talk)
16:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
disruptive editing on the article; users adding an
unreliable source claiming that the show has been cancelled, when there is no official word on the matter yet. Page was last protected a while ago for the same reason, and no one has listened to it. Until it has been a full year since the last new episode aired, or if a reliable source announced its cancellation, this page MUST be protected until further notice.
BrickMaster02 (
talk)
18:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection, if there is any protection at all, is likely more appropriate here. It looks like one new editor (who was not appropriately warned about a lack of reliable sources) and an IP, who was also not warned on their lack of reliable sources. Full protection is excessive, and please remember to warn (by template or by a personalized message) editors & IPs for not using reliable sources.
Phönedinger's jellyfish II (
talk)
19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Persistent unconstructive editing by
User:DeepstoneV who has been continuously doing disruptive editing by adding false unsourced information
[104] without providing credible sources to support their claims. Even I asked him to discuss about it on talk page but they aren't responding
[105] Despite multiple requests from myself and others. He seems confused there as at first he says the result should be inconclusive
[106] but then changed his mind for editing result as "Saka victory"
[107]Shakib ul hassan (
talk)
19:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Receiving a significant amount of vandalism since protection expired. Would suggest semi for a while (probably until the end of Eurovision 2024).
Elli (
talk |
contribs)
20:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Different IPs have either been trying to remove a sentence in the open against apparent consesnsus or editing it in a disruptive fashion
[113] for the past 5 days.
Skynxnex (
talk)
01:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. That's why you came to me, isn't it, Skynxnex? Because you knew I could do those things that you weren't capable of doing? Well, it worked. And you'll get what you want: no more unconfirmed editors editing the
Elim Garak article for an entire year. And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved several more people from having to revert these disruptive edits. And all it cost was a few keystrokes and clicks, one log entry under
WP:CT/GG, and the self-respect of everyone reading this response. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
01:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Multiple unregistered accounts ignoring multiple warnings of changing flag without going to talk page to see or discuss reasons into possible changes. For example an unregistered user changed the flag without reading the Talk page to why it was changed here:
[114], it happened again here:
[115], and it also again happened here
[116], all these were confronted by me by giving an edit backlog which stated to not do so without going to the talk page, source:
[117],
[118]. I had discussed why the Lion of Judah flag was changed to the plain, green, yellow, red flag on the bottom of the talk page here
[119] with this user
User:Socialwave597, while we had a fruitful conversation regarding the adding of the flag due to my stance of making the Plain flag on the infobox which followed
WP:SCHOLARSHIP rule, me and the user determined at the end that a high quality flag of the plain should be added, to be noted they also said they also wanted the Imperial lion of Judah flag to be next to the Infobox using the example of the
Derg page, which had no other flag besides 1, so i went forth without any more objections from any other user to the talk page, and made the plain flag which is the national flag of the Ethiopian Empire, according to the sources which i listed at the talk page. So the gist is, please do not let users with 1 2-3 edits and newly created accounts to edit the page, who have showed more than likely to ignore the talk page.
CtasACT (
talk)
03:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Note:@
BrickMaster02: I'm on the fence so I'm going to let another administrator decide. I can't help but wonder if there isn't a better solution for television shows. We allow DOB to be sourced from social media, we allow sports transactions to be confirmed by the athlete, etc. I don't know what a better solution would look like, especially one compatible with
WP:RS, but in the absence of a solution, perhaps a specific warning template like {{
Current sports transaction}} would help.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
01:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I would like to request semi-protection for the article "Raid of Ahmednagar (1657)" due to consistent changes in the results and outcomes by users relying on a limited number of sources without providing multiple authenticated sources. Please review the sources and determine whether the event should be classified as a Mughal victory or a Maratha victory. Additionally, it is important to maintain the article semi-protected from anonymous users. Thank you.
User:Shakib ul hassan -The individual in question has made multiple attempts to modify the content with limited sources and has altered the previously added results from the original article creator. I request that appropriate measures be taken against this person.
Kemilliogolgi (
talk)
04:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Content dispute. Please use the article's talk page or other forms of
dispute resolution. Please use the article talk page for its intended prupose. Neither one of you has done that. In fact, no one has done that, ever.
El_C04:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This article needs more eyes, definitely. I am not even sure a separate article should exist, most of the info provided should be merged into other articles.
Lectonar (
talk)
09:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. If the issue is with a single editor, consider dispute resolution, ANEW, or ANI as appropriate. -
Aoidh (
talk)
07:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Add Guest appearance on This week with George Stepanopoulous Show on Sunday 18 February 2024, where he discussed the November 2024 presidential election by saying the election was a choice between a Crook, a Coward or the Couch.
2601:196:200:65F0:183B:3580:8401:863C (
talk)
04:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Addition of unsourced content by IP editors. This page has been protected in the past for same thing so I believe and indefinite protection should be given to this page. –
sbaio16:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because the user who ordered the protection did so 13 years ago and the user is now retired. ....... .
Mintyfoetus (
talk)
04:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined It appears there have been two edit requests on the talk page in the last 10 years, the last one was responded to in less than a day, so the burden isn't so high that an IP can't use the talk page of this BLP.
Dennis Brown2¢14:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Will also log at CTOPS. A legitimate discussion that should not be settled by non-autoconfirmed edits to the article.
Daniel Case (
talk)
18:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The subject has a young audience and is acquainted with
MrBeast who also has a big audience. The page has been vandalized quite a lot since the last protection so I suggest an indefinite protection for the time being. WanderingMorpheme17:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: A sudden increase in various IPs trying to change the ethnic origin of the individual and deletion of sourced content.
Ixudi (
talk)
15:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: We are starting to see vandalism and NPOV related to a recent death that occurred in relation to the school, which is now getting international news coverage. The page views have skyrocketed and as this story moves further up in the news, we're going to see more of it. –TCMemoire19:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I don't understand why ECP is even necessary here. There are many more high-profile people who have articles, such as Princess Diana and Charles III, that have done just fine without ECP. Yet, there's ECP for a former gubernatorial candidate (who lost) who's been of the spotlight since.
2600:1000:B142:B945:C5A:5170:DADC:4540 (
talk)
18:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Might I suggest a longer semi edit protection? The Netflix series Griselda based upon the life of Blanco is still fresh in people's minds and there is still a bunch of disruptive editing going on.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK20:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite extended protection: Arbitration Enforcement.
WP:PIA. I'm not sure if I should mark this as temporary or indefinite duration so I'm just gonna submit this as indefinite.
Shadow311 (
talk)
15:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protectedindefinitely. This is pretty borderline. On the one hand, the cadence of unsourced and questionable edits is not really that much more than we would typically see with a high-profile article. On the other hand, the article is already under indefinite semi-protection and the nature of some of the unsourced and questionable edits to this BLP are of a sensitive nature. Indefinite is applied with the understanding that "indefinite" is not synonymous with "permanent".
Chetsford (
talk)
00:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Nijisanji keeps being added by IP's dispite there being no reliable sources and unspoken agreement among loged in editors that it should not be included (see the page's history).
GrayStorm(
Talk|
Contributions)23:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
ItsCheck, you are displaying gross
incompetence that amount to defamatory statements against a living person. You need to be way more careful moving on, or sanctions of considerable severity will become imminent. Thank you.
El_C01:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High degree of vandalism. On Feb 13th, admin Daniel Case increased page protection to require admin access. The protection expired on Feb 20th. Immediately afterwards the page was vandalized again.
Instantwatym (
talk)
03:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary pending changes: Persistent
vandalism – Experiencing vandalism basically every day, similar to
Looksmaxxing. This article needs some expansion, though, so I think pending changes would allow for people who aren't more dedicated contributors to help out. TLAtlak02:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Over the last month, IP addresses have attempted to add promotional content and/or removed large portions of controversy information in an attempt to whitewash.
CNMall41 (
talk)
05:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Vandalism that went under my radar, and I am not able to restore the article to normalcy. I also cannot monitor the article 24x7 as I have a job and Twinkle doesn't work on mobile mode. Kailash29792(talk)08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level vandalism, both IP and newly created users. The same pattern has been followed throughout months. Requesting for a long term protection.
Imperial[AFCND]11:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Guy du Temple de Rougemont, known as Guy de Rougemont, born April 23, 1935 in Paris and died August 19, 2021 in Montpellier, is a French painter, watercolorist, draftsman and sculptor, having spent a large part of his life between Paris and Marsillargues , in the south of France.
A multidisciplinary artist, he seeks to remove the border between the arts, particularly between sculpture and painting, and intervenes in everyday places, in squares and in the streets, while creating objects and furniture. Among his famous works are his Cloud table (1970) designed for the decorator Henri Samuel (1904-1996), his Coloring of a Museum (1974), a temporary artistic intervention during which he covered strips of Colored PVC columns of the Museum of Modern Art of the City of Paris, as well as his Environment for a highway, where he installed urban sculptures over 30 km along the A4 highway section La Veuve-Sainte Ménéhould, France (1977 ).
Member of the Academy of Fine Arts, he was the son of General Jean-Louis du Temple de Rougemont (1910–1990).
Biography
Childhood and family
Guy du Temple de Rougemont was born on April 23, 1935 in Paris. His father, Jean-Louis du Temple de Rougemont (1910-1990) was a Cavalry Officer. His mother, Louise Marie Cécile Lejeune10 (1913-2002), is the descendant through her father of General Baron Lejeune (1775-1848), battle painter. Through her mother, Marguerite Murat (1886-1956), she is the descendant of Caroline Murat (1782-1839), sister of Napoleon I. Guy de Rougemont is the eldest of five children. His brother, François de Rougemont, is a civil engineer and graduate of Harvard Business School. Her sister, Cécile Marie Edith du Temple de Rougemont (1936-2000), Duchess of Lorges, was a student of André Chastel (1912-1990) at the Institute of Art History and allowed her to discover Florence, guided by the illustrious art historian himself. His second sister, Laure, Princesse de Beauvau Craon (1943-2017), was President of Sotheby’s in France. Finally, his younger sister, Anne de Rougemont, was the assistant of Aimé Maeght, then attached to the I.C.O.M, and a member of the Association of Friends of the Georges Pompidou Museum, before being the assistant of Madame David -Weill, President of the Union of Decorative Arts, a union itself created by Monsieur Taigny, great-grandfather of Madame Louise Lejeune, mother of the artist.
Youth and training
Guy de Rougemont was exposed to art very early on, because his American paternal grandmother introduced him to watercolors very early on. After the Second World War, Jean-Louis du Temple de Rougemont was appointed deputy military attaché in Great Britain. Guy de Rougemont spends his holidays there, which allows him to visit London museums. He lived for five years in a boarding school in Normandy, at the Roches Normandie school. In 1957, his father was appointed to the Pentagon as part of the Atlantic Pact, so the whole family moved to Washington for a year, where Guy de Rougemont attended an American school and exhibited his first watercolor. His schooling ended at the Cours Bergson in Paris. In 1953, he prepared for the École Nationale Supérieure des Arts Décoratifs (ENSAD), in the studio of the painter Bernard Cathelin (1919-2004), rue de la Grande Chaumière. He was admitted to Arts-Déco in Paris on May 24, 1954 and studied painting during his training - notably in the studio of Marcel Gromaire - and quickly participated in his first exhibitions, first abroad. In 1962, he presented his pictorial work at the d'Arcy Galleries in New York then at the Ateneo Mercantil gallery in Valencia in 19646. He stayed from 1962 to 1964 at the Casa de Velázquez in Madrid after obtaining a state scholarship, where he became friends with Jean Canavaggio. He participated in the Paris Biennale of 1965 and the Salon de Mai of 1966, at the invitation of the painter Jean Messagier. He spent 1965 in New York, with his friends Jean and Irène Amic, where he met young artists on the New York scene such as Andy Warhol, Robert Indiana and Frank Stella. He opens up to large format acrylic paint, measuring the strength of simplified, refined shapes and the power of solid color. His work is often assimilated to the movements of Pop art and Minimalism, whose forms he draws inspiration from, without claiming to be so. Arnaud d'Hauterives, permanent secretary of the Institut de France, evokes this founding trip during the reception of Guy de Rougemont under the dome, a few decades later: "This stay will be a revelation for you, you will receive the 'true lesson' of the great French painters that you admire, Léger, Matisse, Bonnard, seen through another eye, that is to say removed from all appearances. »
The work
Geometric abstraction from 1965
After his return from New York, Guy de Rougemont radically changed his artistic practice. From then on, four major periods can be outlined in his career, defined from the geometric shapes he uses to compose his works. In 1965, he introduced the ellipse, which he developed on the surface of his canvas. In 1967, at the request of his friend Gérard Gaveau6, responsible for advertising for Fiat automobiles, he created his first environment in the Fiat hall, on the Champs-Élysées in Paris. He places canvases cut out in the shape of ellipses in the exhibition space, establishing a dialogue between art and automobiles. Following this event, he created his first objects in volume. During the 1970s, he used the cylinder, a geometric shape that he considered to be the perfect combination of circles and lines. He uses it to place his polychrome volumes in space, creating large cylinders, also nicknamed "totems", "columns" or even "beacons", which take place in urban space, as on Place Albert Thomas in Villeurbanne, or in the interior space, with small sculptures. The Coloring of a Museum, at the Museum of Modern Art of the City of Paris in 1974, marks the peak of his use of the cylinder. The artist covers the twenty columns of the museum portico with colored PVC, in an ephemeral manner, playing with borders, placing his work between interior and exterior, on the museum square13. At the end of the decade and particularly during the 1980s, the artist put aside the cylinder, favoring the raster surface. He created one of his major works in 1986, the mosaic of colored marbles which adorns the pavement of the Bellechasse square, in front of the Orsay Museum. Finally, from the 2000s and until the end of his life, the artist deployed the serpentine line, marking a return to the use of curved shapes.
Urban sculptures and installations
Among his many achievements, let us mention those of the Saint-Louis hospital, the Marne-la-Vallée RER station, the square in front of the Orsay museum, the Hakone Open Air Museum in Japan, and the Place Albert-Thomas in Villeurbanne, the Hofgarten of Bonn, the metropolitan park of Quito in Ecuador, the reception and care center of Nanterre, where he created a 300 meter long mural, the sculptures of the A4 motorway between Châlon- en-Champagne and Sainte-Ménéhould, the paving carpet 140 meters long and comprising 28 types of colored marble, called "the great ribbon" located in the Pierre Beregovoy hall of the Colbert building, at the French Ministry of Finance located in the district from Bercy (Paris 12th). Many monumental sculptures are also commissioned for private collections in Dubai, Marrakech and Mallorca, among others.
The graphic work
Guy de Rougemont is a painter and lithographer. During his trip to New York, Guy de Rougemont also learned the technique of screen printing, originally used by the Americans to mark crates of goods using the stencil system, which was later taken up by artists for their graphic research. One of them was Andy Warhol, whom Guy de Rougemont met through his roommate in New York, the painter Marisol. On his return to France, Guy de Rougemont produced numerous screen prints. He is one of the figures who introduced the practice of screen printing in France, at the time of the events of May 1968, at the Atelier populaire des beaux-arts. He told Laurent Gervereau, in 1988, how this happened: “On May 14, it must be half past nine, ten o'clock in the evening. I come home and there is a general meeting. In this general assembly, I recognize a certain number of my painter friends who see me, who wave to me. The Beaux-Arts lithography workshop is in the process of producing a poster… […] I speak up and say that I know a quick, easy, inexpensive process to implement… And my comrades, my friends, make me responsible. They tell me: “that’s very good, since you know that, tomorrow morning you bring us the equipment and we’ll start a screen printing workshop…”. This is how he became the technician of the popular fine arts workshop, but he always maintained that he had not designed any posters himself. For several years, he shared his studio in Marais, rue des Quatre Fils, with his friend Éric Seydoux, with whom he produced screen prints for other artists and for various social events.
Guy de Rougemont is also a furniture designer. In 1969, for his exhibition at the Suzy Langlois gallery in Paris, he presented his first “Volumes” in cardboard and published his first carpet, called Free Form Carpet6, which marked the beginning of his research in the third dimension. In 1970, he designed his famous Nuage table ("cloud" coffee table, in English), for the decorator Henri Samuel, and the same year, he published a cloud lamp and various utility objects, such as a placemat, with the Germain Gallery in Paris.
In 1974, he collaborated with the Manufacture des Gobelins for whom he created a tapestry, The 7 Pillars of Wisdom, presented at the Lausanne Tapestry Biennale in 1977.
From the 1980s, he published several sets of furniture with Artcurial: the Transparences furniture, the Diderot furniture in 1986 and the Du Deffand furniture in 1989, in homage to Madame du Deffand, a famous 18th century letter writer, who three centuries earlier , lived and held his Literary Salon in the artist's studio, rue des Quatre-Fils.
The last years
Widower of actress Anne-Marie Deschodt (1938–2014), he lived mainly in Marsillargues during his last years. He continued to collaborate with the Diane de Polignac gallery in Paris, with which he created furniture pieces and exhibitions, as well as with the Galerie du Passage, where he exhibited for the last time in 2017.
Recognition and posterity
A member of the Institute, he was elected member of the Academy of Fine Arts, painting section, on December 17, 19973 in the chair of Jean Bertholle. He was Commander of the Order of Arts and Letters.
In 2022, he will benefit from an exhibition "Homage to Guy de Rougemont"24 at the Bouvet-Ladubay Center in Saumur (Val de Loire), organized with the participation of the Diane de Polignac gallery. His works are also present in important collections, notably at the Museum of Modern Art in Paris, the Museum of Decorative Arts, the International Museum of the Salvador Allende Resistance (Santiago de Chile), the National Center of Plastic Arts and the Museum of modern and contemporary art in Saint-Étienne.
Guy de Rougemont had no children. The joint ownership formed by his heirs — his brother, his sister Anne and his nephews — is managed by his nephew Laurent de Rougemont and his wife Sophie de Rougemont.
The exhibitions
Personal and group exhibitions (selection)
Personal exhibition, Galerie Suzy Langlois, Paris, 1969.
Collective exhibitions, Galerie Karl Flinker, Paris, 1965, 198028.
Personal exhibitions, Galerie Cupillard, Grenoble, 1974, 1983
Personal exhibitions, Galerie Pascal Gabert, Paris, 1987, 199229, 2005, 2007.
Personal exhibition, Galerie Gamarra y Garrigues30, Madrid, 1988, 1989 (FIAC), 1990 (ARCO collective)
Personal and collective exhibitions, Galerie Maeght, Paris and Barcelona, 1998, 1999.
Rougemont retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art of the City of Paris, Paris, 1974.
Rougemont Retrospective, Public Spaces and Decorative Arts 1965-1990, at the Museum of Decorative Arts, Paris, from May 22 to August 19, 1990. On this occasion, the texts of Yvonne Brunehammer, Daniel Marchesseau, Bernard Chapuis and Bernard Minoret are published in the exhibition catalogue.
Personal exhibitions, Galerie du Passage, Paris, 2003, 2010, 2017.
Participation in fairs and exhibitions
Salon de Mai, Paris, 1966
Salon de Mai, Havana, 1967
Salon de la Jeune Peinture, Paris, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971
International Print Biennial, Paris, 1968
Tokyo Print Biennale, 1969
Salon des Réalités Nouvelles, Paris, 1970
Salon Grands et Jeunes d’Aujourd’hui, Paris, 1975, 1976, 1977
Lausanne Tapestry Biennale, 1977, 1979
Salon de Montrouge, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1987
Salon of Decorative Artists, 1985
Retrospective, Pavilion of Arts and Design (PAD) Tuileries, Paris, Galerie Diane de Polignac, 2013
Reason: Two IP editors (probably the same person given their locations) repeatedly adding verbose plot details to the lede. Requesting a short period of semi-protection.
Barry Wom (
talk)
14:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Two IP editors (probably the same person given their locations) repeatedly adding verbose plot details to the lede. Requesting a short period of semi-protection.
Barry Wom (
talk)
14:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – This article has been edited by at least 4 LOCK177 sockpuppets in the last couple of months. Other edits by non-confirmed accounts/IPs appear to also be adding unsourced content. Pinging
Courcelles as you closed
the SPI where I also requested semiprotection (but without specifying specific articles), as I don't want to be seen to be adminshopping. All the best. —
a smart kitten[
meow18:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent
disruptive editing from numerous IP users; adding that the show is supposedly ending tonight, only based off of TV promos and nothing else. Main page was recently protected for the same reason, and if this doesn't get temporarily protected, their disruptive edits will continue.
BrickMaster02 (
talk)
18:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. The edit history is a list of reverts, and given its status as upcoming, protection may be benifical
Geardona (
talk to me?)
23:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I honestly don't know what specified non-editing actions is. Maybe it's a CU thing...? HTH.
El_C02:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: vandalized by an ip twice and then edited by a promotion-only account within the past week, can somebody semi-protect this for a week or two, or at least until a clear consensus on its AfD is reached?
108.49.72.125 (
talk)
21:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It's getting worse. The IP is intent on revert-warring until they get what they want, and now accusing of "vandalism" when opposed. This needs to stop. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Daniel Case: Why did you protect this? There were no further edits from the IP editor after I declined the request. The IP editor had posted to the talk page (nobody has replied) and then SMcCandlish claimed it's getting worse, but I only see good faith edits.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
22:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
A) I already said how it's getting worse, by the anon accusing people of "vandalism" for daring to disagree; b) I've already opened a broader input discussion at
WT:MOSDAB since pretty much no one watchlists
Talk:Hustler or much of any other DAB talk page. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SMcCandlish: I looked at the whole situation when I declined the request. You've equivocally responded that It's getting worse and now accusing which succeeded in getting another administrator to briefly protect the article. And now you've moved the discussion to your preferred venue without responding to the other editor's attempt to initiate a conversation on the talk page, even just to inform them of the new discussion. That seems like an inordinate amount of
WP:GAMING to win a disagreement over one line in a disambiguation page.
Daniel Case even asked you to respond. Finally, "vandalism" being asserted is an opportunity for education, not carte blanche.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
01:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is unnecessary because it wasn't vandalized before its unnecessary semi-protected, there was no reason to semi-protect it despite the account being blocked, this goes for all the other pages that was just semi-protected.
2603:6081:893D:13AC:C0C6:7687:D3C1:DA03 (
talk)
04:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined as it was protected to prevent block evading editors from editing, and it appears to be working as advertised. The same for the others, which I already checked out.
Dennis Brown2¢06:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This vandalism resumed immediately after the page came off a ~1 year semi-protection.
Aoidh (
talk)
09:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 1 year, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The majority of edits going back to 2022 are vandalism and reverting of said vandalism. -
Aoidh (
talk)
09:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I've semi-protected this article for 24 hours as a stopgap against disruptive editing while discussion continues here about longer protection. —
The Anome (
talk)
18:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
On that note, to all those reading, the justification I believe for indefinite protection is that ultimately this being a GENSEX article makes it at all times a target for IP vandalism, but its inevitable low traffic once the news cycle moves on means that such vandalism may take a while for anyone to actually notice and correct. Thus, an easy filter against this is indefinite semi.
Snokalok (
talk)
18:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It's a relatively new article, though ... my feeling is deciding now that it needs indef semi is a little
pre-emptive (although based on past GENSEX protections, particularly the very similar
Murder of Brianna Ghey, it's likely headed that way). We should give the community its chance to protect the article, or at the very least not impose indef semi without some sort of consensus.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I dunno
Daniel Case. There were around a dozen reverts earlier today related to
deadname violations, there have been maybe half a dozen pronoun changes, and several other disruptive edits surrounding the killed teen's gender. I'm all for giving the community a chance to protect the article, but I think exhausting the community for something that could be more gracefully handled with semi-protection is not a great idea. With just the deadname violations from earlier, I'm already halfway to the 3RR brightline, and another editor is technically over it though a BLP/BDP exemption justification could be made.
Due to the circumstances surrounding the death of this teen, it's adjacency to the perennial culture war machine
Libs of TikTok, and as you admit the similarities to
Murder of Brianna Ghey, I really don't think we're in pre-emptive territory here. I think we're in prevention of ongoing disruption territory.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
20:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I second this position. Even after the news has died down, this will remain one of those critical subjects that will continue receiving just enough attention that reverting vandalism on this article will remain a potentially infrequent, but consistent chore for editors. I find it more reasonable to consider semi-protection an act of preventative maintenance.
Agentdoge (
talk)
21:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't disagree. But we should still have some sort of formal allowance for "ECP and 1RR from the get-go" in the case of articles about, or mostly about, individuals whose gender identity calls for different pronouns and/or attracts deadnaming. This is so common with trans or NB individuals that I would defy you to find an article about one where this hasn't had to be done.
But it is nevertheless an extraordinary step to take that, like the other four where this kind of protection is permitted ... to my recollection,
Armenia-Azerbaijan articles directly related to the conflict,
Arab-Israeli conflict articles very broadly construed (especially in the present situation),
the Russo-Ukrainian War and
South Asian castes, tribes or ethnicities. All of those as far as I know are the product of some discussion that concluded that pre-emptive protection is justified in these cases. And I would very much prefer we had this discussion in this instance rather than reinvent this particular wheel everytime the subject comes up, because tacitly encouraging this kind of administrative IAR behavior has not always led to the best results in the past.
Daniel Case (
talk)
21:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
But we should still have some sort of formal allowance for "ECP and 1RR from the get-go" in the case of articles about, or mostly about, individuals whose gender identity calls for different pronouns and/or attracts deadnaming It's funny you say that, because I had previously been thinking that perhaps the provisions of
WP:ARBECR should be extended to cover GENSEX. That's not without its own issues though, the recent discussions on the scope of the "edit requests only" have revealed some of the shortcomings of that approach. I think though, because GENSEX is an ArbCom set of sanctions and not the community enacted General Sanctions, such a request would have to go through ARCA, at least as the first port of call.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
21:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I totally agree. That is exactly what I am advocating.
This'd probably need a little bit of planning first, at least to get evidence in support of the request together. After that, it'd be an amendment request at
WP:ARCA. Ultimately the decision is up to ArbCom. We could do the prep work on your or my talk page?
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
22:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I've asked for one that covers Turkey as well as other contentious areas of Western Asia not covered by existing sanction regimes on more than one occasion, but successive committees were, like, no, get fucked (granted, more politely, but that was the gist).
El_C21:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite pending changes protection: Content Dispute/Edit Warring. Ip hopper from serbia constantly removing content in spite of consensus, repeat from jun of 2017. Also ARBAA2 to boot.
Geardona (
talk to me?)
20:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: A likely contentious subject, as well as subject to daily edits and changes in edit history, which isn't a bad thing per se, but could potentially end up in an edit war or with vandalism at some future point. I believe this is overall contentious and should be protected for the best level of neutrality and structural integrity possible. It should be protected like all other Israel or Israel related articles as well as any Palestinian related articles, etc.
70.23.5.67 (
talk)
17:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. December is too Stale. If something new happens, feel free to relist. I did revdel some of the more egregious disruption.
El_C21:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ohnoitsjamie: As far as I can see, all of the edits by non-confirmed users to this redirect in the last few years have been reverted, and there are quite a number of them - the vast majority of history entries seem to be either vandalism or edits reverting said vandalism. I came across this request while randomly browsing RFPP, but if I'd reverted vandalism on that page myself & then checked the history, I'd probably have requested semiprotection myself (albeit possibly for a few years rather than indefinitely, given the page hasn't been protected before). All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow00:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: There are repeated good faith edits with not reliable sources by IP user and his sock puppet account created newly (IP:161.69.71.25 and
User:Sooriyamalai, whose only contributions have been these edits). Despite repeated reverts with reasons by various users, this has been continuing. The page is in the middle of a GA review and improvements as well. So request temporary protection to extended users.
Magentic Manifestations (
talk)
03:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent Disruptive Editing. Lot's of disruptive editing has occurred a number of edits were reverted due to being link spam
1keyhole (
talk)
02:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Airline's announcement today of its pending closure has resulted in extensive edit-warring, including by several anonymous editors; there were as many edits today as the previous two months combined
Stephen Hui (
talk)
06:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent non-constructive/disruptive edits from
106.205.136.0/21. Maybe p-block that range from this article for a long period instead of just a short semi-protection against all IPs?. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
12:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
106.205.136.0/21 has just been blocked for 2 weeks, but there are other IPs (IPv4 and IPv6) that have previously made the same sorts of disruptive edits on this page. Might be worth leaving the page unprotected as a honeypot to see to which ranges they hop next. — Archer1234 (
t·
c)
13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Requesting move protection for article in a naming dispute. The article had previously been unilaterally moved without consensus. I feel this needs administrator input.
Tammbecktalk13:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Old name of the bridge is being brought up by some right wing party in the middle of electoral campaign for upcoming elections.
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – Persistent vandalism and religious POV pushing. This article is contentious because Ravidassias were considered part of the Sikh faith, but have splintered off in recent times, there is also a dispute regarding the extent of the religious status of the founder, hence there are many disruptive editors pushing their religious biases here.
Southasianhistorian8 (
talk)
18:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Repeated edits by an IP user regarding "serious grammatical error" of the usage of the word "Onward", despite the issue has been resolved via consensus at the talk page
Jauhsekali (
talk)
23:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because ....... .
98.11.54.102 (
talk)
18:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The Thin Blue Line Flag has nothing to do with Trump supporters and their rallies, although they may have appeared there in the past, it has no direct relation to conservative thinking or being a Trump supporter. This flag is a symbol of great respect toward law enforcement, as well as those who have given their life to serve our communities.reply
Support: I was about to make a request as well, and I'm considering making a 3RR report. Indefinite
WP:SEMI or
WP:ECP would be very welcome. I'm prepping an SPI, but due to
WP:OUTING concerns, I'm awaiting advice from @
Aoidh. In addition to that, there's a COI and lots of
WP:GAMING and purposefully causing link rot in an effort to undermine consensus. The person in question travels around the globe a lot, hence the slew of random IPs involved. So in lieu of indefinite extended protection, a long enough semi-protection would be very helpful. That way, the SPI (and the subsequent COI/Vandalism resolution) can get a chance to mitigate further issues once protection is lifted.
If the vandalism is mostly or entirely from IP addresses then ECP is not justified. If there are disagreements about the content in the article, the first stop should be the article talk page. If editors are unable to come to consensus, then please seek
dispute resolution help. Do not
edit war.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
04:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Pending-changes protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It seems like there is a lot of
WP:NOTDIARY cruft, but that doesn't warrant removing references and other bad disruptive behavior. However, I don't see significant disruption from autoconfirmed editors so ECP isn't warranted.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
03:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected for a period of 7 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
Chetsford (
talk) 08:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time.On further review, a short period of EC is warranted.
Chetsford (
talk)
08:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC); edited 08:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: There has been unfair and unsourced edits by a group of wikipedia editors.
They have been removing legitimate awards of the subject (Josh Cahill) of the page. In the link below, they are discussing/planning to add unsourced changes to Josh Cahill's wikipedia page. They also claimed that the source used on Josh Cahill's wikipedia page is WP:Sponsored but there is no proof, and they did not provide any other sources on why the source is WP:Sponsored. Their claims could also qualify as WP:OR.
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – A shifting IPv6 is repeatedly removing the MFD template from this page, and has been warned repeatedly. A 64-range has been blocked, but the address is shifting in a larger range, and the IP continues to remove the template. The most straightforward action seems to be semiprotection until the MFD is concluded.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
12:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The page has been protected six times, last time for a year. The protection expired, and daily disruption (which in addition of just being disruption also violates
WP:RUSUKR) resumed. It is probably time for an indefinite protection.
Ymblanter (
talk)
12:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hmm, alright. There has been a flurry of edits today, and it felt a bit overwhelming to keep up with, but maybe that will have calmed down. I had a few in a row which I rolled back as vandalism:
[126],
[127],
[128], but I can see why it wouldn't looked too concerning drowned in today's 100+ edits to the page, fair enough!
Mlkj (
talk)
15:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Oooh my bad! Thanks for catching this, that explains it =)
It might also haved calmed down on its own, I'm happy to accept the decline on this this botched request, thanks for taking the time either way.
Mlkj (
talk)
16:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because the vandalism has stopped. Now this page requires some important information but as this page is protected, editors aren't able to submit the informations. Such as we need to add the plot section in this page so that people can read it and learn about how the show is and if it's watch worthy........ .
Tarapriya (
talk)
16:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
User:JalenFolf, I warned those users--next time, please do that when you revert such edits, so that it's easier for us to block in a timely fashion and prevent disruption. I don't see the need to protect at this moment.
Drmies (
talk)
21:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Recent patterns of the infobox photo being changed to much older, lower quality photos, sometimes with vandalised subtitles.
XAnio (
talk)
00:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level attempt of restoring deleted article. See its history. And a brand new editor has been restored it recently. The deleted article have been attempted to restore 6 times till now.
Imperial[AFCND]11:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Please change the page protection rights from open to semi-protected. IP editors are coming and unanimously editing the mission outcomes of SLIM and IM-1 mission without discussions on this page as you see in history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_missions_to_Mars&action=history . They don't discuss and want to know that Whether a lander ended up on its side, nose, or facing an unexpected direction are not inherently criteria of mission success. The criteria are whether each payload was enabled to perform its designed function or does the lander full-fill the mission requirements for that agency for that mission. SLIM lander main objective is landing so successful. Though im-1 has landed tilted here, only Moon Phases Art installation is blocked that is passive and rest payloads are working. Communication bleak signals say, its a case of priority to get max Scientific results, so delay. Thus like for some virgin Galactic flights are suborbital at 85+km, landing success (if agency needs that only) or payload working give a mission success designation. —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (
TALK)15:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection: Persistent
vandalism – The history of this page is almost entirely reverted diffs, from random new accounts or IPs. There are very few non-spam edits that I can see from new users.
It's had temporary semi-protection in the past. I'm requesting semi again as a small step above pending changes. Though looking at the crossed out lines in the history, I wonder if it'll need more :|.
Mlkj (
talk)
12:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to
justify protection. I warned the user about edit warring and I also informed them about
MOS:INFOBOX. @
Nikkimaria:@
Moxy: Please read
WP:BITE regarding edit summaries and talk page explanations. Edit summaries like See mos and odd placing are much too terse to be sufficient when you are engaged in a dispute with a newer editor.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
00:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection,Reason: Suspected blocked member who is suspected of sockpuppetry now seems to be using an IP to reinstate his views, after both of their accounts got banned.
VirtualVagabond (
talk)
19:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Edit: I see that a parallel request was made above. I declined this independently before I saw it. While I see that there has been a bit of frustration among the regular editors there, and it looks like you are making a push toward FA status, I still don't see sufficient disruption to warrant barring anonymous editing at this time.
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done01:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I understand it's frustrating to have people vandalizing an article while you're working on improving it, but it wasn't a close decision. Regarding the disruptive users, there were several more recent disruptive edits and that user has been warned so
WP:AIV would be the next step for them, and the user from a day ago is temporarily blocked and not sockpuppeting on this article so they aren't a standalone reason to protect it either.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
02:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
JayCubby: There is definitely an issue with ongoing if not especially frequent disruption, but with only one disruptive edit in the last 5 days, the level of disruption isn't sufficient right now. Regards.
Daniel Quinlan (
talk)
02:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent addition of unsourced content upon expiry of last protection template on 23 February. Edit history shows that this likely falls under a contentious topics issue (religious relations in India), as most of the disruptive editing involves unsourced assertions that the mosque was originally a Hindu temple.
Panian51316:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Muboshgu well check it you self your administrator you protected
Philadelphia Flyers so how come you can't protect this page
Fani Willis if your administrator then you don't need to request protection for this page you could do it yourself if who ever is not or non administrator then they could request the protection.
24.46.161.253 (
talk)
05:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Hi,I recently found some unknown user try to attempt an fake genealogy of baj singh bal without any proper sourcing its my request to protect this article in order to prevent fake information
Truthfindervert (
talk)
15:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: User talk page of one of
User:Shame on PJ Santos' IP socks. The IP got blocked for 6 months last February 10 for harassment and vandalism and now it uses the user talk page for vandalism and tagging everyone involved in its block. The user talk page was previously semi-protected for 1 week. -
WayKurat (
talk)
03:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason:Please change the page protection rights from open to semi-protected. There is high level of IP vandalism. IP editors are coming and unanimously editing the mission outcomes of SLIM and IM-1 mission without discussions on this page as you see in history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_missions_to_Mars&action=history . They don't discuss and want to know that Whether a lander ended up on its side, nose, or facing an unexpected direction are not inherently criteria of mission success. The criteria are whether each payload was enabled to perform its designed function or does the lander full-fill the mission requirements for that agency for that mission. SLIM lander main objective is landing so successful. Though im-1 has landed tilted here, only Moon Phases Art installation is blocked that is passive and rest payloads are working. Communication bleak signals say, its a case of priority to get max Scientific results, so delay. Thus like for some virgin Galactic flights are suborbital at 85+km, landing success (if agency needs that only) or payload working give a mission success designation. —🪦VSVNB1058 (2020-2023) (
TALK)18:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: VPNs and IP addresses are engaging in disruptive editting by replacing sourced info with unsourced info about Zhang's coach. Users have no history of editting on Wikipedia, and don't use the talk page. Users specifically target information about his coach. sourced info about his coach will eventually be replaced by unsourced info.
Temporary Semi Protection: Persistent addition, ignorance of
WP:OVERCITE and non-constructive edit by new editor, also unwilling to engage discussion on talk page. By putting temp semi protection, new editor will be required to engage in constructive discussion on the gain consensus and edit the article.
Ckfasdf (
talk)
12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Vandalism. See talk page. A number of edits are being made to include a 'Criminal Charges' sections. Possibly as a politically motivated thing to do. No other UK party has a 'criminal charges section'. See page talk section and various edits.
NottsPolitics (
talk)
15:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protected for a period of two weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This way neither you nor the IP will be able to edit it and will have to work it out on the talk page.
The absence of any such section from our articles on other British political parties is not a valid reason by itself to remove it, not when it's adequately sourced. Nor does this argument scale well as there's a huge difference between the larger parties, which claim hundreds or even thousands of current and former elected officials at all levels of government, and a very small one that has fielded candidates in one very small area of England. Although, I am not sure it deserves a separate section, at least not when we have (as noted on the talk page) separate articles about some of these people, including the party leader.
Daniel Case (
talk)
20:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Increase protection. Frequent addition of poorly sourced, POV statements. Seems like users are trying hard to pass semiprotection to add their POV. As the article's result section is controversial, and edit warrings are expected at any moment, requesting for increasing the protection.
Imperial[AFCND]05:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Can you identify any disruptive editors who haven't been blocked indefinitely who would be unable to edit if the existing semi was raised to ECP?
Daniel Case (
talk)
05:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Well User:R2dra have been warned for disruptive editing for almost 12+ times. I took that to
WP:AIV, but a bot removed that report; I didn't catch it further. I am pretty sure that user will continue doing the same on Indian history related articles. Just check their talk page and it will be all clear.
Imperial[AFCND]07:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
User(s)
blocked:
Rd2ra (
talk·contribs) blocked by Star Mississippi. for 31 hours. It does seem like they're heading for an IPA topic ban or some CTOPS action like that if they continue in this vein. Yes, ECP would keep them from editing the article, but at the cost of closing it off to some autoconfirmed editors who might be willing to contribute productively.
There are two things we could do about this:
Pending changes. At least until such time as Rd2ra gets EC user rights without
gaming the system to get it. Or
1RR. Would apply equally to everyone editing and slow down any edit wars.
Indefinite full protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Persistent
disruptive editing on the article; multiple users have consistently added information irrelevant to the TV show. Previously resulted in a recent three-month protection. It is evident that they are resistant to learn from past actions. Without indefinite protection of this page, the ongoing issues will continue, detrimentally impacting the quality and integrity of the article. Therefore, it is crucial that indefinite protection must be implemented to safeguard against further disruption.
BrickMaster02 (
talk)
16:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protection:BLP policy violations – A number of revdelled revisions over at least the past year, and some oversighted revisions. Not many constructive edits by non-confirmed editors. —
a smart kitten[
meow22:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I am not putting this under CTOPS yet, since this is the first time we've had to protect this article in years. But it would properly be under ARBEE, as a) as the article states (and indeed the recent edit warring has been about), not all ethnic Hungarians live in present-day Hungary;
quite a few live in other nearby countries such as Romania, which no one considers part of anything but Eastern Europe, and b) ARBEE calls for the topic area to be broadly construed.
I'd also add a c): Hungary and the Soviet Union had a short border, which is today the border between Hungary and Ukraine, making "Eastern Europe" more arguable as a categorization.
Daniel Case (
talk)
22:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Protection occurred nearly 11 years ago and I highly doubt this article is a serious target for vandalism. (Assuming this page wasn't protected due to sockpuppetry) SuperSkaterDude45 (
talk)
20:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: IP editor blanking content and formatting using multiple IP addresses with no explanation, reverting constructive edits, edit warring. Ss11221:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined –
Warn the user appropriately then report them to
AIV or
ANI if they continue. Which I just did (ANEW might be more appropriate, though). But I can't fault them for edit warring when they weren't warned about anything for the last three weeks. Nor do I see a reason under BLP to exclude this if/when it is reported in a reliable source. ... in fact, a journalist getting charged with witness intimidation isn't something that happens every day. You are best advised to take this to
BLPN..
Daniel Case (
talk)
22:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The article does not come under EE. Maybe someday we will have some sort of CTOPS or GS designation for the Caucasus and Asia Minor.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Since this is the first protection in the article's history, I am not making it a CTOPS action. I will leave a notice on the talk page, though.
Daniel Case (
talk)
03:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – Seeking indefinite semi-protection for this article that lets only autoconfirmed users edit. Louis' siblings pages have been protected as such and show no signs of IP vandalism. Article had no vandalisers for past two months when protected temporarily. Its an important article, please grant such protection at the earliest.
MSincccc (
talk)
08:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The IP editor had actually added fact that the person was Louis' future sister-in-law twice. Even if that user is new and inexperienced, addition of such information is disruptive @
Daniel Quinlan. Regards and yours faithfully,
MSincccc (
talk)
09:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Daniel Quinlan Two edits were made yesterday by an IP user at 05:46 (UTC) and 19:26 (UTC) respectively and though both IPs are different, both the edits claimed a certain Pia Hargraves to be Prince George's official future girlfriend. Also "2601:182:1080:7DE6:" is common to both IPs. Its the same person. Just wanted to tell you that I am a very peaceful person and that if possible please make sure that the page is not unprotected. Its GA potential and the article's standard will significantly improve if it were not unprotected for an indefinite period. Regards
MSincccc (
talk)
09:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This article has been the subject of a long duration attempt by someone who is dancing across IPs and new accounts to change the nature of the relationship of the victim and perpetrator without providing sources. In October, the article was protected against this for two weeks. See
protection request. Following the expiry of that protection, the behavior resumed. A
subsequent request for the same behavior resulted in the article being protected for two months. Since that protection expired, the behavior has resumed. Asking for semi protection for at least six months. I'm an administrator, but I would be considered
involved. Thank you, --
Hammersoft (
talk)
12:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – last IP blocking ended several days ago, shortly after block expired the Trolls started coming back. Probably needs to be blocked for a longer period.
Denniss (
talk)
18:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: the current information is out of date and misleading. Discog for example finishes in 2022 and yet Fraser T Smith has released many more tracks and albums
LUHARARYA (
talk)
16:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This level of protection should be removed completely and reviewed again if any vandalism or inaccurate editing. The first level was put in place in 2019 and while reviewed again, seems unnecessary
LUHARARYA (
talk)
16:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: I wrote the copy for this page for Girls' Latin School. This material is copyrighted in my book, "Her Greatness Proclaim". Some one came in and changed it to Boston Latin Academy and then protected it. I want it changed back for copywriter infringement and protected as Girls' Latin School. I have tried editting it will not accept the changes.
GLSpres (
talk)
12:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The current page has been built up by many different editors since it was created in 2006 as Boston Latin Academy. The book "Her Greatness Proclaim" was published in 2014 according to Worldcat. What parts of the article are you saying were copied from the book?
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
13:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Not unprotected because there is no protection on that page. Requester is being reverted by other editors. Disputes like this should be discussed on the article talk page, not here. If there is a case to be made at all, it would be for deletion of this article due to being a copyright violation, but the copyright detection search doesn't turn up anything significant. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
03:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection of this page is no longer necessary as there is no widely known controversy surrounding this page and there has been no spike of interest in the page
Hereforthefacts1 (
talk)
01:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Declined. @
Hereforthefacts1: What you claim is false. There has indeed
been a spile of interest over the last couple of months. Given the unusually lengthy protection log, I am not confident that disruption won't resume if protection is reduced. If you want to suggest a change, make an edit request on the article's talk page. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
03:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Admin-only protection is no longer needed because ECP protection has been implemented. I am requesting that the protection be downgraded to ECP protection so that a draft can be accepted if ready for acceptance. There is a draft, which is not ready for acceptance. At this point I would only like to tag the redirect as {{R with possibilities}} and to permit another reviewer to review the draft.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
01:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This is the third time I have come here to request protection for this page, and it keeps being removed. I do not understand. IP vandalism resumes every time protection is removed. Permanent protection, please. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
00:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: High level of IP vandalism regarding a recent news story which shows the article's subject in a poor light. IPs are removing and re-adding this content, often leaving trashed formatting in their wake. A dozen edits today fit this description, and I see lots of other recent IP vandalism as well. Thank you,
Jessicapierce (
talk)
02:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: Article was moved without consensus and made into an historically inaccurate dab page. An
RM has been started and this should be protected as a redirect until that discussion ends as the article is most likely to be moved back for historical accuracy.
Skyerise (
talk)
20:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Indefinite semi-protection: I'm in the middle of a minor edit spree on uw templates. These are always substituted, so most of them are semi protected (some, template-protected). Noticed this one isn't, submitting for your consideration.
(I don't have a full list at the moment, but note that there are more in the same situation, like uw-harass1, uw-ai1).
Mlkj (
talk)
13:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: The protection is no longer necessary because this article on the city of Multan, Pakistan is containing many mistakes in spelling, grammar, word, content, mistakes, etc and thus protection should be completely removed and all those mistakes should be destroyed and the article should be conquered and fully edited out so that no mistakes are present, just like all other articles on Wikipedia.
120.56.103.231 (
talk)
14:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – I have little idea why, but this article seems to have an above-average rate of test edits/accidental edits/potential petty vandalism. See also filter log.
Remsense诉12:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
due to persistent LTA edits from IPs over the course of several years. I will also be tagging article with {{primary sources}}, as this appears to be an underlying issue that partially caused the edit warring in this case; the content the LTA objected to may well be unjustified, but removing a source and half of the information cited to it while leaving a full paragraph of now-unreferenced information is extremely disruptive editing even before we get to the edit warring and name-calling. signed, Rosguilltalk20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Extended confirmed protection: Persistent
disruptive editing – New editor ignoring guidelines regarding sourcing and listcriteria. Wants me to "stop interfering with the development of the Kazakh fandom",
[157], mentioned canvasing
[158], was warned not to,
[159], then did it anyway.
[160] (the friend is already blocked,
[161]). When I offered to help them learn, they replied they do not have time.
[162] I thought they intended to stop 11 February 2024
[163] but they have continued. //
Timothy ::
talk 15:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC). //
Timothy ::
talk15:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Reason: This disambiguation page has seen an uptick of disruptive editing and vandalism since mid-January from IPs and newly created accounts arguing over some type of furry. It's not like daily but I think it could use some protection. (I tried to make this request a minute ago but a bot got rid of it for no reason). StreetcarEnjoyer(talk)19:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent
sockpuppetry – Multiple socks over several days involved in edit-warring. There have been at least two confirmed socks of the same user (
[164],
[165],
[166]) and in the last 24 hours at least 4 brand-new single-purpose accounts are participating in the same edit-war (
[167],
[168],
[169],
[170]). An SPI has been started for the latter (
here), but this looks likely to continue in the near future.
R Prazeres (
talk)
19:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply